Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 195 (239320)
09-01-2005 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
08-31-2005 11:53 PM


quote:
I've been looking but I don't see where you've proven that a new gene has to have "specified complexity" in order to be beneficial. In fact it's pretty obvious that this isn't the case at all. The same new gene can be a beneficial mutation in one environment, and a detrimental one in another environment. Since one gene can be beneficial or detrimental without changing in any way, we know that "specified complexity" isn't necessary for beneficial mutations.
A loss of information can be beneficial. But like you said the environment would have to make it that way. If say A snakes mouth became smaller then others due to a mutation. Then out of thin air come millions of frogs(what movie was that on). The snakes with the big mouths were able to eat them but the small mouth couldn't *sad face* He might not have been able to eat the frogs but since they where poisoness and all his big mouth friends died. So basically he win's the lucky information loss game *happy face*
quote:
But it turns out that that's not really all that important. Only about 10%, maybe, of the length of a protein is the actual binding site - the only part that actually has function. And in the genes themselves, over 90% of a genetic locus is useless, junk DNA or "introns" - sequences that are transcripted but eliminated before protein synthesis occurs.
Even discounting the introns, you can monkey with about 60% of the genetic instructions for your average protein before you even begin to appreciably affect it's chemical function.
The word analogy simply doesn't hold up. It's absolutely useless in this context and all it's doing, really, is giving you false ideas about the role of information in genetics.
Ill start here tomorrow im about to fall asleep at the laptop lol.
quote:
It's going to be very hard for me to understand your view. I already mentioned that my wife works in the genetics field. She's doing research every day that wouldn't even be possible if evolution, specifically common descent and what you term "macro-evolution", were not fundamentally true.
It's like you're telling a pilot's wife that you have doubts that airplanes actually fly. If evolution isn't true then what do you think people like my wife are doing in the lab all day? Don't you think that, if her research were impossible to perform, as it would be if evolution were not true, she would have noticed by now?
It shouldn't look to different, if you believe in everything desending from a genus. Dog-Horse-cat, and so on. It would seem like common desent to a point. That is of course untill you arive at macro-evolution. when you arrive there things get bumpy. Whatever your wife is doing in the lab. More then likely it has to do with Micro-evolution. That is seeing how macro-evolution had never been witnessed in a lab.
quote:
Indeed you will. The reason for that is that creationism is fundamentally wrong. So wrong, in fact, that anyone who holds the position of creationism is either ignorant of the facts, fundamentally dishonest, or outright doesn't possess the intelligence necessary to understand the issue. Don't get your panties in a knot - this is true about anybody who holds a fundamentally, demonstratably wrong position. It's true about Holocaust deniers, it's true about supply-side economists, it's true about flat-earth proponents, and it's true about people who reject the most scientifically verified theory of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Naturally, someone so ignorant, dishonest, or mentally handicapped is not an appropriate candidate for a science-related field. I wouldn't hire a Holocaust denier as a historian; I wouldn't hire a flat-earther as a geographer, and I wouldn't hire a creationist as a biologist. I'm sorry if that seems discriminatory or intolerant, but tolerance doesn't mean that we give lies or idiocy an equal weight to fact. Creationism is demonstratably wrong. Evolution is demonstratably accurate. Someone who cannot recognize this clear and obvious fact is not qualified to be a scientist, just as someone who can't tell the difference between diesel and gasoline isn't qualified to be an auto mechanic.
you explained how I feel about evolution perfectly. At least to this point, because I have never been persuaded otherwise. To many false "evidences", persuasive talk, and close minded "Im right , Your wrong" type of so called "scientists looking for the truth". I have never heard a desent explanation of how the first cell formed or how dna formed, or how the first protien arose in an imaginary atmosphere that produced 50/50 right hand and left handed amino acids, or why so many of the "missing links" contain huge dating flaws, or how information found in "simple cells" ended up becoming complicated enough to produce a human, or how the eye and the other irreducibly complex systems arose, honestly the list goes on and on and on. I have heard alot of repeated nonsense but nothing actually worth noting. That is why I am here to see if I can find something worth noting. So far I have nothing for how new appendages arose from a simple cell. In other words I have a cell here that is going through mutations and its not growing anything new because its relying on old information and slowly beoming extinct because its only loosing or having neutral mutations. Show me something different or stop pretending you have the answers to these problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 11:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 1:39 AM tjsrex has not replied
 Message 96 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 2:45 AM tjsrex has replied
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2005 9:01 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 195 (239346)
09-01-2005 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 12:48 AM


quote:
But it turns out that that's not really all that important. Only about 10%, maybe, of the length of a protein is the actual binding site - the only part that actually has function. And in the genes themselves, over 90% of a genetic locus is useless, junk DNA or "introns" - sequences that are transcripted but eliminated before protein synthesis occurs.
Even discounting the introns, you can monkey with about 60% of the genetic instructions for your average protein before you even begin to appreciably affect it's chemical function.
The word analogy simply doesn't hold up. It's absolutely useless in this context and all it's doing, really, is giving you false ideas about the role of information in genetics.
So in other words,It doesn't realy make that much of a difference if the code is in order because 90% is "junk DNA". Lets assume that you are right and that 90% is "junk". The mutation would more then likely produce a neutral mutation. Some of the "Junk DNA" might be screwed up but so what right? It depends whether it was actually "junk". Antibiotic resistent bacteria contain the resistent for the antibiotic before they become "resistent" to it. In fact, some bacteria revived from corpses frozen before the development of antibiotics have shown resistance. So what if the change got rid of that important "junk"? even if it didn't "seem" do anything but mess the structure up it will still be considered a loss of information and complexity because it is a neutral mutation. Either way you look at it you are still loosing information. im not trying to figure out what the probabilities are that a mutation is going to be harmful, or the probobility of it being neutral. Its only meant to show you that Mutations are not going to add any new information rich material that can be used to create a brand new gene, with brand new proteins, for brand new organs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 12:48 AM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 195 (239363)
09-01-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
08-31-2005 11:55 PM


quote:
Well, now you're contradicting yourself. If information loss can be beneficial, and modification of a duplicated gene is no gain, then new information is not needed for macro-evolution. Apparently you can go all the way up without needing new information - you just need a source of novel genes, which you already agree that we have.
Wrong, another play on words I see. Information loss can be beneficial only if the environment makes it beneficial.If a Dog gets a mutation that gives it more fur and that winter is like the ice age. The dog with the mutation has more chances of survival, Natural Selection. But that dog did not gain a new gene in the process or a new protien, or a new organ. Its already existing code was just altered from the original in a way that it lost information from before. Complexity not Specified Complexity. If you never get specified complexity then you will never get the right information for new organs. Loss of information does not get you such results: tha enemy is now attacking will not eventually become a whole new sentence and be given the merit of specified complexity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 11:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 94 of 195 (239370)
09-01-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 7:10 PM


Re: Dawkins
The selective algorithm in Dawkins' program also only weeded out variations tat were already there. Evolution depends on the generation of variation and the selection of those variants. It is the combination of those two factors that is required, not one working alone.
So evolution can explain specified complexity. Mutations (sometimes) generate greater complexity, yet selection enforces a degree of specification upon the mutations that are retained in the genome. And by definition natural selection favours beneficial mutations (and therefore those that make genes bneficial - or more so) over those that are detrimental.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 7:10 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 12:11 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 95 of 195 (239374)
09-01-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by tjsrex
08-31-2005 7:33 PM


No obvious fault there, but then that wasn't what you were saying previously.
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 is a completely different definition, which was kind of my point. The fact that a mutation has no effect on fitness does not neccessarily mean that it has simply altered existing information.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by tjsrex, posted 08-31-2005 7:33 PM tjsrex has not replied

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


Message 96 of 195 (239377)
09-01-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 12:48 AM


In other words I have a cell here that is going through mutations and its not growing anything new because its relying on old information and slowly beoming extinct because its only loosing or having neutral mutations.
Have you actually looked at anything about gene duplication and neo-functionalisation? These seem to simply be assumptions with absoloutely nothing to support them other than your preconcieved notions of how mutations work.
As a hypothetical would you consider the sort of frame shift mutation which is thought to have produced at least one of a number of proteins allowing nylon digestion to be creating new information. If a long stretch of DNA which does not code for a protein or have any apparent regulatory function undergoes a frameshift and suddenly produces a coding region for a protein with some metabolic activity would you consider this an example of a gain of 'new' information?
By the way have you actually suggested anything which you would consider to be a gain of information for your 'Every Bird has wings' example yet?
What aspects of gene complexity were you thinking of, it is a pretty broad subject. There are complex elements in regulatory , structural, genetic and functional areas, was there anything specific you were interested in?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 12:48 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 11:05 AM Wounded King has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 195 (239502)
09-01-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wounded King
09-01-2005 2:45 AM


quote:
Have you actually looked at anything about gene duplication and neo-functionalisation? These seem to simply be assumptions with absoloutely nothing to support them other than your preconcieved notions of how mutations work.
As a hypothetical would you consider the sort of frame shift mutation which is thought to have produced at least one of a number of proteins allowing nylon digestion to be creating new information. If a long stretch of DNA which does not code for a protein or have any apparent regulatory function undergoes a frameshift and suddenly produces a coding region for a protein with some metabolic activity would you consider this an example of a gain of 'new' information?
By the way have you actually suggested anything which you would consider to be a gain of information for your 'Every Bird has wings' example yet?
What aspects of gene complexity were you thinking of, it is a pretty broad subject. There are complex elements in regulatory , structural, genetic and functional areas, was there anything specific you were interested in?
TTFN,
Mutations are copying errors that occur.
About the nylon:
" Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested.5 If this were the case, the production of an enzyme would indeed be a fortuitous result, attributable to ‘pure chance’. However, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance.6
Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes:
1.
There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.
2.
All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.
3.
All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genesthe chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.
4.
The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons.8 This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 1012. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands.
Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:
‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.
‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.
‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’
It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.
Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).
5.
The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.
6.
The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.8
P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sourcessuch as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids).
The chromosome of P. aeruginosa has 6.3 million base pairs, which makes it one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome means that only a relatively low mutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hypermutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome."
I made a new sentence as a new example. It can be found on one of my previous posts. It isn't "Every bird has wings" but it is the same principle. Only thing is that the sentece itself represents a gene, unlike the bird sentence that wong was added to. I am guessing that you were thinking of each word being a gene and thats why you only duplicatied wing instead of the whole sentece.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 2:45 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 12:43 PM tjsrex has replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 195 (239524)
09-01-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
09-01-2005 2:19 AM


Re: Dawkins
quote:
The selective algorithm in Dawkins' program also only weeded out variations that were already there. Evolution depends on the generation of variation and the selection of those variants. It is the combination of those two factors that is required, not one working alone.
So evolution can explain specified complexity. Mutations (sometimes) generate greater complexity, yet selection enforces a degree of specification upon the mutations that are retained in the genome. And by definition natural selection favours beneficial mutations (and therefore those that make genes bneficial - or more so) over those that are detrimental.
"2. The main thrust of Dawkins' Weasel is to demonstrate an example of an 'Evolutionary Algorithm'. This algorithm would be a simple formula (which must occur naturalistically), but when given the right input, could generate great complexity and even useful information.
However, the amount of information or intelligence generated by an algorithm can never be greater than the intelligence or information that went into creating the algorithm. Since, as has been stated above, Richard Dawkins is very intelligent, his program must be disqualified as an example of an 'Evolutionary Algorithm'. If only Dawkins' Weasel had been the result of random coding.
Weasel Casino corrects this by eliminating the algorithm and reflecting the real world where a protein must be functional and complete the first time, or it is discarded. Biology insists: "Get it right the first time." Remember, "Dice have no memory."
Of course biological and colonial algorithms do exist, but their ingenuity and pragmatism strongly indicate a need for their own designer. "
So if the generation of variation is there and the selection does not produce a functional and complete protien the first time, it will be discarded. "Dice have no memory". Remember, "the amount of information or intelligence generated by an algorithm can never be greater than the intelligence or information that went into creating the algorithm." Natural selection cannot keep what it "thinks" will be usefull untill it has specified complexity. If the information is not there the first time it is discarded. Again "Dice have no memory".
Mutations are copying mistakes. if a program is being copied and some of the information changed. It doesn't mean that if the program keeps having copying mistakes, its going to form a totally new working progam. Eventually that program would be screwed up to bad to even work properly. Many of the copying mistakes could be neutral and not effect the overall program, but they are makeing the information rich program information poor because it degrades what was already perfectly functional. In order for it to transform the program into a new working program with specified complexity, a force would need to guide it along in the process. Natural Selection cannot be this driving force because it is not able to make a working program the first time. It is highly improbable that random copying mistake(mutations) would occur in the same parts of the program without also affectiong the other parts. Don't forget that Natural Selection has no objective other then to weed out what is useless. Its objective is not new gene's, its objective is to keep what is benefitial. If an old gene changes and alows a dogs hair to grow. Then it gets cold and other dogs die but the one with the information poor gene lives, because the environment makes it beneficial, It is still information poor. That gene has produced a loss because it no longer will produce short hair. Without specified complexity arising at one time then Natural Seletion will not go towards making a new gene with specified complexity. It won't try to make a protein it doesn't have knowledge of. As you already know, in order for a new protein to arise the blueprint for the amino acids to follow must already be present. If the blueprint is not complete then the new protein cannot be produced.
This message has been edited by tjsrex, 09-01-2005 12:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 2:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 12:36 PM tjsrex has replied

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


Message 99 of 195 (239538)
09-01-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 12:11 PM


Re: Dawkins
I don't know where you got that from but whoever wrote it doesn't have much of a clue.
THe weasel program is not intended as a representation of evolution (as I already pointed out)
The weasel program does NOT assume that "dice have memory" (how do we know ? Because it uses random variations itself - with no memory)
"Weasel casino" is apparently "more realistic" because it assuems that detrimental mutations don't occur. (Why is THAT realistic ?)
And what on earth would an "incomplete" protein be ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 12:11 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 12:46 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 106 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 100 of 195 (239541)
09-01-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 11:05 AM


Could you please stop it with the massive blanket cut and pastes. If you have read the material and have a substantive answer then give it in your own words with reference to your source. If you don't understand it then don't say anything, don't just post the entire page in the hopes that something in there will rebutt the point you are addressing. Are you not even bothering to reference AIG any more, should we just assume that all of your posts are culled from there?
Point 1:- Totally irrelevant.
Point 2:- This assumes that the transposases are entirely neutral in terms of selection, not neccesarily the case, especially since evolvability is highly desiable on plasmids as it facilitates the generation of variation, one of the reasons bacteria are able to evolve so many novel proteins allowing them to gain resistance or metabolise new substrates. There is also no evidence either way as to whether the transposases were inserted reently or anciently, it also overlooks the fact that this in reference to many observed instances of these insertion sequences not simply those on pOAD2.
Point 3:- Eh? Plamids are well know for their increased propensity to mutation over chromosomal DNA. You would surely expect rapidly arising features to be more likely to occur on such a plasmid?
Point 4:- Not really that remarkable considering the highly repetetive and GC rich nature of the sequence on the plasmids.
Point 5:- No the research doesn't show that. It just shows that bacteria are very adaptable and that Pseudomonas is particularly so. It would be much more remarkable if the very same nylon degrading gene/s had evolved.
Point 6:- is totally irrelevant since I was talking about the theory that the new enzyme was generated effectively de novo.
As to their conclusion
Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome.
this is already a well established theory, especially since plasmids so readily allow horizontal gene transfer and therby the sharing of successful mutations between bacteria.
I am guessing that you were thinking of each word being a gene and thats why you only duplicatied wing instead of the whole sentece.
That is correct. I hadn't seen your other example, it might help if you didn't reply to yourself so much of the time. Your example is pretty hopeless, it shows that you can't in fact concieve of any transformation of your original sequence that would constitute an increase in 'new' information, all you propose is the 'de novo' creation of a completely new and apparently totally unrelated gene.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 11:05 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 1:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 101 of 195 (239542)
09-01-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
09-01-2005 12:36 PM


Re: Dawkins
He got it from This site is under development.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 12:36 PM PaulK has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 195 (239544)
09-01-2005 1:05 PM


Ya, the second one I did. The nylon one was from AiG.
If I don't understand something I research it. If I can't explain it as well as he explained it I will post his explanation. Why try putting something someone else understands far better into my own words? If I don't understand how somethings works I wont just go "well I guess I should not look for an answer" im going to look and post someone who claims to understand its anwser to see if it holds water. I try to see what side the valid informarion leans towards. I do not ignore information so that one side automatically gets a handicap vote.

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2005 1:37 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 195 (239556)
09-01-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Wounded King
09-01-2005 12:43 PM


quote:
Your example is pretty hopeless, it shows that you can't in fact concieve of any transformation of your original sequence that would constitute an increase in 'new' information, all you propose is the 'de novo' creation of a completely new and apparently totally unrelated gene.
The example shows that although some instances might seem like information is being added from a mutation it is not. It shows that mutation have not been know to produce selective complexity, only complexity. So hopeless...I guess it is if you are trying to get specified complexity whithin a duplicate or single gene from a mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 12:43 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 1:44 PM tjsrex has replied

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


Message 104 of 195 (239565)
09-01-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 1:05 PM


Two points.
Firstly if you quote material you should credit your source at the very least. And according to the rules of this forum you should try "make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references"
Secondly research should include a bit of discrimination. You should try to filter out unreliable and inaccurate information (which means that most creationist sites are mainly useful as sources for creationist views). That's not to say that creatinist claims are always false or misleading - just often enough that they need to be checked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 1:05 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 195 (239570)
09-01-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 1:20 PM


would you say that a mutation that switches on wings in a bug would be increased information?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 1:20 PM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 3:45 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 111 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 5:07 PM RAZD 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