Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

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


Message 121 of 195 (239837)
09-01-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by RAZD
09-01-2005 7:27 PM


Re: Dawkins
I had to more clearly explain my "the boy ran fast" and "the boy ran" example later on. I wasn’t saying that vegetables contained an incomplete protein (or that amino acids were missing from that protein). I was just trying to point out that vegetables are low in one or more of the essential amino acids needed for a protein in animals. You need to eat more then 1 type of vegetable if you are a vegetarian to get the right amount of amino acids for a complete protein in animals. It really is not relevant to this discussion.
It is still a loss of specified information. if the sentence went from 'the boy ran fast' to 'the fast boy ran'. Although it could be benefitial that "the boy can do several things fast". It might also be harmful. If something that he did needed to be done slowly then because he does it fast, it becomes harmful. So whether or not it is actually benefitial depends on how well it works in its current environment. But again there is no new information provided. Only a cut-and-paste of already existing code.
"transposition can disrupt genes by direct insertional mutagenesis and can adversely affect transcription......the presence of mobile and repetitive elements in inappropriate positions can result in recombination products that are deleterious, such as translocations*, inversions*, and other chromosomal rearrangements" ( Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 7:27 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by nwr, posted 09-01-2005 11:58 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 122 of 195 (239841)
09-01-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 11:32 PM


What is "information"
It is still a loss of specified information.
You really owe us an explanation of what you mean by "information", and by "specified information" if that is a separate term.
Looking through your many posts, it is almost as if "information" is just a nonsense term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 11:32 PM tjsrex has not replied

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


Message 123 of 195 (239853)
09-02-2005 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 7:15 PM


Re: Dawkins
Natural Selection will not guide it to "florists" either. Mainly because it has no reason to go through "small steps" to get to that goal.
Why not? If the organism is in an environment in which the 'florists' gene would be more beneficial than a 'snowman' gene or than a second copy of the 'snowman' gene in the case of duplication.
I think one big problem here is the extreme stretching of the analogy between genes and sentences. Jst using a sequence of letters is fair enough and using words gives us something that we can all recognise as a from of information but using sentences which suggest a function and conflating that with the function of a gene is pretty tenuous. I really think that this sentence based approach leads to an utterly useless approach to the issue, you would be much better off thinking in terms of actual DNA or amino acid sequences, and specifically in the form of the sort of genetic modules which confer specific functional attributes.
At the moment you seem to be saying that the genome can expand and gain new functional, and indeed beneficial, genes but that neither of these things represents a net growth in complex specified information (CSI), which just seems nonsensical. This sort of approach certainly suggests that CSI is just something that Dembski made up to muddy the waters, if it isn't affected by the growth of genomes or by neo-functionalisiation then it seems pretty much totally redundant in regards to evolution.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 7:15 PM tjsrex has not replied

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


Message 124 of 195 (239854)
09-02-2005 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 7:15 PM


Re: Dawkins
Well it doesn't matter that a mutation CAN be beneficial and "information poor". Evolution doesn't care about your ideas of intormation - evolution won't reject a beneficial mutation (or even a neutral mutation) just because it increases information. So how is it possible that information can't be increased by evolution ?
You're also stuck on the idea that evolution has a specific goal in mind. It doesn't. Evolution isn't trying to produce a specific result. There's no point setting up hypothetical situations where evolution wouldn't do what you would like it to do. That proves nothing.
[quote] You will not get a long line of consecutive mutations to that one gene untill it becomes a new gene. Thats like telling the cells to be very precise when making there copying mistakes lol. [quote] Why not ? What stops the changes from adding up ? Remember that the protein produced by the gene could be recruited - and optimised - for new functions, quite different from the original use. Why can't these changes add up to the point where the gene would have to be considered a "new gene" by whatever criterion you are using ?
quote:
You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you won’t get evolution.
That's pretty obviously wrong. How would a new beneficial mutation appearing and spreading through a population not be evolution ? How about a series of such changes adding up to a new species ? Or to a new genus ? Why would that not be evolution even if it doesn't involve what you call "new genes" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by tjsrex, posted 09-01-2005 7:15 PM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 195 (239855)
09-02-2005 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by RAZD
09-01-2005 11:03 PM


quote:
So they have the same amount of "information" but in one case that "information" is poor and in another it is rich? The same amount, but one is of less value than the other? Did the exchange rate change?
If by amount of information you mean amount, as in quantity of code then yes, they more then likely contain the same amount of code. But the one with the ability to produce the wing has more specified complexity.( it still has the ability to make the wing". While on the other hand, the bug lost the ability to produce the wing and therefore gained complexity and poor information. So I guess you could say the value changed. A sentence like: "A monkey climbed a tree" shows specified complexity while clearly "A monkey climbed a lkso" is of lesser value then the first state. So it becomes information poor.
quote:
What about the "information" of the gene that switches it from one state to the other?
It had the "information" for the rich state, then only the "information" for the poor state and then, miraculously, it again has the "information" for the rich state?
Or is it being switched on and off between another informationally poor and rich state?
Needless to say this reductionist argument is ridiculous to pursue. Either the amount of "information" changes or this cannot happen. If "information" can be lost, then it can be {invented\rediscovered} independent of the first form. If "information" cannot be lost then the concept has no {predictive\conceptual\understanding} value.
I am talking about the switch gene. not the gene's that makeup the wing itself. If we were talking about those gene's going through mutations we would be running into changes in the physical characteristics of the wing itself.
If it went from specified complexity, to complexity, and then back to its original specified complexity. It is nothing less then miraculous. In order for that to happen a mutation would need to change what a previous mutation had screwed up. More then likely such a situation did not actually occur but rather a pepper moth type of occurance. The ones with the wings survived better at some points and the same happend for the wingless ones.
If you are talking about the stick bugs then that is more tehn likely the case
"Some entomologists are sceptical of the findings. "It's something we suspect might be happening, but I'd still be suspicious,"...."Reid, whose specialty is beetles, said he found no evidence of such re-evolution in that group. Rather, a study he did of flightless dung beetles in Queensland - where he looked at structural rather than molecular characters - found that the beetles had lost the ability to fly, then stayed that way." Dr Chris Reid of the Australian Museum in Sydney told ABC Science Online"(News in Science - Winged victory over evolution is short-lived - 17/01/2003 )
Specified complexity can indeed be lost. But the chances of complexity returning to its original state of specified complexity from another random mutation is a hard pill to swallow. Although if it did happen it would not add new information rich material which is required for macro-evolution, it would simply have returned to its original state of specified complexity. But imagine if that pill had to be swallowed continually untill a new gene was formed with specified complexity. It wouldn't need to randomly fix one thing in the gene, it would have to fix the whole gene. Natural selection cannot lead to completely new specified complexity because it does not work towards such an objective.
quote:
As noted in the "a boy ran fast" change to "a fast boy ran" there is just as much information in the words but the meaning has added capacity for the boy to be fast at other things. this could easily be selected for by {natural selection} to form a new species phrase.
This could even be preceded by an intermediate transposition to "a boy fast ran" which conveys the previous meaning although a little "poorly" and allows the further mutation to an altered state of more information. This one may not survive long term (due to it's "poor" state) but it could survive long enough to lead to the further mutation of "a fast boy ran" - and it would then also represent a "missing (brief) transition" stage.
Meanwhile another transposition mutation to "fast a boy ran" would restore the original meaning albeit with an altogether different code.
If a change in environment caused the "a fast boy ran" to be less advantageous by natural selection than "a boy ran fast" this further mutation is a more likely evolution to "solve" the survival problem than going back through the poor intermediate.
None of the examples you provided added additional specified complexity. It changed only the positioning of the already existent code. Yes different effects were the rusult but that is Micro-evolution. In every case you are at a loss of specified complexity. "A boy ran fast" contains specified complexity until the meaning opened up the door for more then one thing to be fast. At that point it lost the original ability to limit what was fast. "Fast a boy ran" would be neutral.
If somehow natural selection could create a whole new sentence ( whole new gene ) such as: "A blue penny moved up the tree" without producing small useless steps towards that goal then I would have no problem accepting macro-evolution at a genetic level.
New priteins need specific new blueprints to organize the amino acids. Not slightly altered blueprints.the sentences we have been using are small when compared to the actual amount of compelxity needed for a protein. I mean in order to get proinsulin 84 amino acids must be ordered perfectly. "Since each of the 84 positions in the chain could be occupied by anyone of the 20 kinds, the total possible arrangements is 2084, which, after conversion to base 10, is approximately 10^109."
Since benefitial mutations from information poor complexity cannot add additional information rich complexity, only limit the specified complexity and therefore its ablity to perform its tasks. Natural selection works against small cumulative useless changes leading up to a new gene that has specified complexity. Eventually the loss of specified complexity in the information rich gene will totally eliminate its ability to work. It will not hone in on benefitial losses and create a new gene. Main reason being there is no evidence suggesting that a mutation added information rich complexity to a gene going threw random mutations. No new functions have appeared durring random mutations. All the evidence suggests that it stops already working sets of information.
quote:
Where? Where is the difference at the genetic level? It is all the same code in slightly different patterns throughout the whole genome, and it is entirely possible (theoretically) to take DNA from {one organism} and by genetic manipulation move the individual bits around, copy some and delete others, and end up with DNA from {any other organism}. And there is no loss\gain of "information" in the process.
There is nothing to stop such DNA transformation at any stage in the evolution of any species. What makes it unlikely to repeat former such changes is the {changing\chaotic} {nature\force} of natural selection along the way.
If you were to "take DNA from {one organism} and by genetic manipulation move the individual bits around, copy some and delete others, and end up with DNA from {any other organism}." It would indeed be a change in specified complexity. You would have taken the DNA, that had specified complexity, from one organism and transformed it into a new DNA strand with specified complexity for that new organism. You would have finally acheived Macro-evolution. Only thing is that random mutation cannot go directly to the finished product and needs to go through useless peices in order to get to the finished product, which is against natural selection. Its not smart enough to know when it needs to "move the individual bits around, copy some and delete others, and end up with DNA" to know how to do that requires an intellect far greater then something that throws out trash. Lack of a working way for such a specified complexity to arise is what "Stop such DNA transformations at any stage in evolution of any species"
quote:
Thus the genetic information of Australopithicus afarensis had more "information" and "rich" value than our own. We are but poor deformed apes?
Facinating.
Ummm...buddy "Lucy" was an Ape that walked on all fours, if you want to consider yourself a monkey go ahead and be my guest. Now Adam and Eve had perfect information and rich value. Since they are Human and my ancestors.
Im done posting here its to pointless. I have to repeat myself to much.
Good luck to you all in the future and nice talking with you. Hopefully someone will take over from where I leave off.
again thanks for the chat!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 11:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2005 3:16 AM tjsrex has replied
 Message 127 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2005 6:44 AM tjsrex has not replied
 Message 128 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2005 7:12 AM tjsrex has not replied
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2005 11:32 PM tjsrex has not replied

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


Message 126 of 195 (239857)
09-02-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by tjsrex
09-02-2005 2:32 AM


If it went from specified complexity, to complexity, and then back to its original specified complexity. It is nothing less then miraculous. In order for that to happen a mutation would need to change what a previous mutation had screwed up. More then likely such a situation did not actually occur but rather a pepper moth type of occurance. The ones with the wings survived better at some points and the same happend for the wingless ones.
If you are talking about the stick bugs then that is more tehn likely the case
Is there any reason why we should consider this anything more than simply your own opinion? I mean you don't have anything useful like actual evidence do you?
New priteins need specific new blueprints to organize the amino acids. Not slightly altered blueprints.the sentences we have been using are small when compared to the actual amount of compelxity needed for a protein.
Ah, I see, you now absolutely nothing about biology, why didn't you say so. The vast majority of proteins fall into asily classifiable families based upon similiar structural features, both in therms of DNA and amino acid sequence. If slightly altered 'blueprints' are not sufficient for 'new' genes then why do we have so many large families of genes which only differ by certain alterations, of varying magnitude?
No new functions have appeared durring random mutations.
I love the smell of bullshit in the morning. There are a vast amount of documented mutations that change function, they may produce deleterious effects as well but they definitely produce new functions.
I mean in order to get proinsulin 84 amino acids must be ordered perfectly.
Any evidence for this?
You would have finally acheived Macro-evolution. Only thing is that random mutation cannot go directly to the finished product and needs to go through useless peices in order to get to the finished product, which is against natural selection.
*Bzzzt*. Wrong, but thank you for playing. There is no neccessity for intermediary stages to be non-functional as has already been pointed out several times. No one other than the ID and creationist camps is suggesting that the usual route for the formation of new genes is a one step miracle process, the problem is you assume all the piecemeal changes are useless, which need not be the case.
Ummm...buddy "Lucy" was an Ape that walked on all fours, if you want to consider yourself a monkey go ahead and be my guest. Now Adam and Eve had perfect information and rich value. Since they are Human and my ancestors.
If you are a biblical literalist then why are you wasting our time with this penny-ante IDist soft shoe informational twaddle?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by tjsrex, posted 09-02-2005 2:32 AM tjsrex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by tjsrex, posted 09-02-2005 6:08 PM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 127 of 195 (239876)
09-02-2005 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by tjsrex
09-02-2005 2:32 AM


I mean in order to get proinsulin 84 amino acids must be ordered perfectly.
OK, a brief look shows that this is not the case. An alignment of Proinsulin homologues, select Multiple Alignment from the dropdown display menu, from a variety of vertebrates shows a high degree of variation at the amino acid level.
Only partially processed proinsulin has been shown to retain ~58% of the activity of fully processed insulin and individuals with a particular amino acid substitution, causing the incomplete cleavage of pro-insulin, show no apparent symptoms (Gabbay et al., 1979). I appreciate that these individuals are almost certainly heterozygous and also posess a wild type allele but this research still shows that some amino acid substitutions will still allow some functionality for proinsulin.
Even the original aricle doesn't explicitly claim that all 84 amino acids are required since it notes that in some species the protein is only 81 amino acids in length. It is obviously an assumption implicit in the subsequent calculation however, and one frequently made by creationists and IDists to bolster just this sort of bogus probability calculation.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-02-2005 06:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by tjsrex, posted 09-02-2005 2:32 AM tjsrex has not replied

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


Message 128 of 195 (239879)
09-02-2005 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by tjsrex
09-02-2005 2:32 AM


Im done posting here its to pointless. I have to repeat myself to much.
Damn, I should really read these posts all the way through before replying. Ho, hum.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by tjsrex, posted 09-02-2005 2:32 AM tjsrex has not replied

  
tjsrex
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 195 (240052)
09-02-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Wounded King
09-02-2005 3:16 AM


I know I said I would stop posting but one thing I need to clear up.
"According to neo-Darwinism, genes to produce novel protein families arose by random mutations in DNA plus natural selection. In the absence of similar genes to provide a starting point, thousands of novel genes must have arisen de novo long ago. The origin of genes with very little sequence variability, such as those coding for ubiquitin or histone H-4,1—5 must somehow be accounted for in spite of the vastly greater proportion of non-functional alternatives."( Protein Mutational Context Dependence 1 | Answers in Genesis )
Genes that have lost specified complexity are considered "new" genes within that family. This is because they have slightly altered code and it is not like the previous information rich gene. But for a true new gene to appear that makes a new family it must have been produced de novo. That is not possible by a loss of specified complexity guided by natural selection. Natural selection helps maintain the occasional loss of complexity, but it will not help maintain bits and peices of new specified complexity. Unless the new gene(or starting point of the family) is to be produced all at once, then the new information would be useless and not maintained by natural selection. Natural selection does not have a goal it wants to reach or a memory like Dawkins weasel program. It will not recognize bits of specified complexity as important information and hold onto them untill it reaches specified complexity. That is giving Natural Selection a brain able to do more then just weed out the useless, but also to slowly reach a complex goal that is outside existing specified complexity.
You can't get around intermediate non-functional stages when trying to get new specified complexity. New specified complexity is the starting point of the new family. It is not in the family itself. As you have already stated, those in the family itself have very few differences. You can have as many benefitial mutations that make slightly different genes within the family as you like, but it will not go towards becoming a whole new family because it doesn't have that as its objective. All Natural selection will do for that family is maintain the benefitial mutations.
I am being a biblical literist because I have no reason to be anything else. Evolution sure has not proven itself to be a worthy theory and therefore change my point of view. It has only shown me that statistically it should be ignored and given no credit other then providing more proof of Micro-evolution, or varriation within a kind.
When I said no functions I should have been more specific. No new functions that require the addition of specified complexity.
quote:
Is there any reason why we should consider this anything more than simply your own opinion? I mean you don't have anything useful like actual evidence do you?
there is no reason why you should consider my opinion as anything more then that. But I also have no reason to consider the opinion that the stick bugs regained there wings after loosing them. The only "proof" for it is that at some point the wingless bugs could survive in nature better then the bugs with wings. That does not mean that all the bugs with wings died. There could have been a small group of bugs still with the wings that made a comeback, when the environment made it an advantage to have them. Thus making it "seem" like the regained there specified complexity. Since the odds against a mutation fixing what another mutation screwed up are hard to believe. I will choose my opinion over the other.
Ok this will be my last post. I need to remove this site from my favorites. It makes it to tempting to reply when I see obvious mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2005 3:16 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2005 7:31 PM tjsrex has not replied

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


Message 130 of 195 (240078)
09-02-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by tjsrex
09-02-2005 6:08 PM


Natural selection does not have a goal it wants to reach or a memory like Dawkins weasel program.
Of course it doesn't have a goal, but it certainly has memory in the form of DNA,memory which can be both read and written to.
That is not possible by a loss of specified complexity guided by natural selection
Yes it is, look up 'gene conversion', wholly novel arragements of domains are possible which can quite easily produce radical new functional arrangements for proteins which may well need a new familial classification.
As you have already stated, those in the family itself have very few differences.
Not quite what I said. I said that there were differences of varying magnitude. The protein are classed due to specific structural similarities. and as with such classifications with animals by morphology they can lead to proteins with highly divergent structures and functions being classed together due to certain key similarities.
When I said no functions I should have been more specific. No new functions that require the addition of specified complexity.
You certainly should be more specific.
It makes it to tempting to reply when I see obvious mistakes.
Such as your ones about fin and gill genes or about proinsulin, neither of which you have cared to address?
Since you are going I thought I might use this post to review a couple of things I didn't have time to cover previously.
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.
This is a really important point, and the main reason why simply bare linking or c&p is discouraged. By putting someting into your own words you show that you have at least some understanding of how the thing works, or you are more likely to highlight gaps in your own understanding, thus allowing them to be filled. Simply cutting and pasting what someone else has written doesn't give any impression that you know what the issues are of have any substantive rebuttal, especially if you make a huge c&p which covers lots of irrelevant or tangential material as well. How does posting someone elses claims test whether they hold water, especially when you seem totally determined to deny the validity of any rebuttals which suggest that they don't in fact hold water, usually trying to bolster the first claim with another cut and paste from the site?
If you write it yourself you will gain a better understanding of the subject and the people you interact with will gain an impression that you actually have some idea what you are talking about.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. I consider this one of your greatest hits...
Information loss can be beneficial only if the environment makes it beneficial.
..in what other way can any trait be beneficial?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by tjsrex, posted 09-02-2005 6:08 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 131 of 195 (240327)
09-03-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by tjsrex
09-02-2005 2:32 AM


"information" concept useless so far ...
tjsrex, msg 121 writes:
I had to more clearly explain my "the boy ran fast" and "the boy ran" example later on. ... I was just trying to point out that vegetables are low in one or more of the essential amino acids needed for a protein in animals. You need to eat more then 1 type of vegetable if you are a vegetarian to get the right amount of amino acids for a complete protein in animals.
This seems to be assuming that plants evolved to feed animals (which has been observed in some special cases, but is not the general case), when instead plants (that are not trying to be eaten) evolve to be less {nutritious\palatable} than others (if not outright poisonous).
Animals that have evolved to eat plants have also evolved to obtain those amino acids by other means, or by eating enough to obtain the necessary quantity (like cows eating grass). Humans as omnivores don't need that adaptation as they can and do (normally) obtain the necessary amino acids from the animal proteins in their diet. Talking about human vegetarians would be totally irrelevant.
It really is not relevant to this discussion.
Fine.
It is still a loss of specified information. if the sentence went from 'the boy ran fast' to 'the fast boy ran'.
Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than just make bold assertions.
Although it could be benefitial that "the boy can do several things fast".
Explain how in this case that there must be a "a loss of specified information" as we now have the boy capable of doing something he wasn't able to do before.
Failure to explain this will mean that you cannot refute that this would be a gain in information.
But again there is no new information provided. Only a cut-and-paste of already existing code.
Of course this renders the concept of information totally irrelevant because all genetic code is made up of four base units in rather specific patterns, and thus at this level it is ALL just cut and paste.
This means there is no difference in the information content of the DNA of a bacteria and the DNA of a human.
If there is no way to differentiate these with the concept of "information" then the term as used is absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of mental bandwidth. It is semantic salami slamming, whether you observe if your fingertips are getting hairy as you type or not.
This is also like saying that there is nothing new written in any language: it is just cut and paste of {existing words/phrases/sentences} from stuff that has already been written, any new words are just cut and paste of {letters\symbols} from stuff that already existed, and even the symbol used to designate the {artist formerly known as princ} is still cut and pasted from {lines\marks} that existed before.
If NOTHING is new then saying there is no new "specific information" or any other kind of "information" is redundant ridiculous non-sense with no descriptive value to the argument.
"transposition can disrupt genes by direct insertional mutagenesis and can adversely affect transcription... (http://www.answersingenesis ... junk ...)
"can" does not mean "always" and the problem here is that you need to make it mean "always" or the argument is, once again, absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of mental bandwidth.
tjsrex, msg 125 writes:
If by amount of information you mean amount, as in quantity of code then yes, they more then likely contain the same amount of code.
"More than likely" doesn't cut it. Either they have the same amount of information or they have different amounts. You need to evaluate both conditions if you cannot show that only one condition applies.
Of course if one condition has less information than the other, then when the situation is reversed there must have been a gain in information, so you really have to show that there can only be the same amount of information (and not just claim this to be the case).
Failure to demonstrate this will mean that you cannot refute that there would be a gain in information.
But the one with the ability to produce the wing has more specified complexity.
Sorry, we were talking about information. Let's stick to one undefined concept at a time to show that it is either (a) useful or (b) useless.
So far you are at (b) useless.
I am talking about the switch gene. not the gene's that makeup the wing itself.
I am talking about the switch gene (and assuming for now that the information to build or not to build the wings is kept by both states) and I am also talking about the "information" that it (the switch gene) contains: in one case it turns the wing on and in anther it turns the wing off, So either it has two different levels of information or ... it gets turned off and on by another gene ...
The problem you have is that the gene is being switched and in one case it makes wings and in the other it doesn't: either information was added to the switch gene to turn the wing off or information was added to the switch gene to turn the wing on ...
... or the concept of "information" as used here is absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of bandwidth.
If you are talking about the stick bugs then that is more tehn likely the case
"More than likely the case" doesn't cut it. You need to evaluate all possible conditions if you cannot show that only one condition applies.
Failure to demonstrate this will mean that you cannot refute that this would be a gain in information.
If it went from specified complexity, to complexity, and then back to its original specified complexity.
Sorry, we were talking about information. Let's stick to one undefined concept at a time to show that it is either (a) useful or (b) useless.
So far you are still at (b) useless. Or should I say "absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of bandwidth."
The rest of the post now being about "complexity" instead of "information" will be ignored until we settle the "information" issue.
Ummm...buddy "Lucy" was an Ape that walked on all fours,
False. The evidence is otherwise, from the head to the toes to the footprints at Laetoli. Denial of evidence doesn't make it go away nor change the universe from it's course.
if you want to consider yourself a monkey go ahead
I consider myself an ape, one that has evolved from ancestor apes that walked on all fours and even climbed trees. I have no ego problem with that concept.
Now Adam and Eve had perfect information and rich value. Since they are Human and my ancestors.
With absolutely no evidence thereof, either the existence, the "perfect-ness" of the "information" or the "richness" of the "value" -- not in fossils, not in genetics.
And if we go by the story, Eve is a clone made out of Adam and then transgendered, so that he could mate with himself.
Im done posting here its to pointless. I have to repeat myself to much.
Is this another declare victory and gallop from the field waving the banners act? Rather than repeat yourself, you could try actually making some definition of a term so that it would mean anything.
Define information as used to differentiate bacteria from human. Quantify the "information" content so that it can be measured, and then show that one has more (and how much more) information than the other.
{{added by edit}}
tjsrex, msg 129 writes:
Ok this will be my last post. I need to remove this site from my favorites. It makes it to tempting to reply when I see obvious mistakes.
Yep it is the run from the field while declaring victory creationist super-shuffle.
In other words you cannot answer the points that refute your argument. I understand.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*03*2005 11:37 PM

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 125 by tjsrex, posted 09-02-2005 2:32 AM tjsrex has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 195 (240712)
09-05-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by tjsrex
09-01-2005 12:48 AM


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.
No, what my wife is doing has to do with macro-evolution. What she does would not be possible if macro-evolution, that is, the evolution of new species from old ones, had not occured, and if random mutation and natural selection could not create novel genetic sequences.
What she does would be literally impossible if macro-evolution as you've defined it had not occured. Does she observe it in the lab? No, of course not - the samples she works with are dead. But the observations she makes would not be there if macro-evolution had not occured.
I have never heard a desent explanation of how the first cell formed or how dna formed
Do you supposed that might be because those are problems of chemistry, and you're talking mainly to biologists?
The chemical origins of life is a focus of chemistry, not biology. The theory of evolution is not a model of the development of life from its non-living precursors, but of the history and development of organisms that are already alive. If you don't understand the scope of the theory, then you simply don't understand the theory.
how the first protien arose in an imaginary atmosphere that produced 50/50 right hand and left handed amino acids
Again, a problem for chemistry, but let me see what I can find...
Here we go. I trust you'll have no problem with primary sources? You can look these up on the web or at your college's library, I'm sure.
Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389: 234-235.
Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151.
Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.
In fact here's a monster of an article that suggests an explanation for most of the questions you've raised so far:
Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595.
how the eye and the other irreducibly complex systems arose
Eye evolution is pretty well understood. I suggest that you start here:
quote:
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
That is why I am here to see if I can find something worth noting.
I promise that I'll do my best to show you what I know. But since we're talking about science, a lot of the evidence is going to be found in scientific papers. You need to be prepared to look these up yourself. I can help you do that, of course, and help you understand some of the technical language. I'm a layman as well, certainly not a scientist, but I encounter a lot of these papers so I might be able to lend a hand.
But you have to be willing to extend at least a token effort. Are you?
Antibiotic resistent bacteria contain the resistent for the antibiotic before they become "resistent" to it.
That's often the case in the wild; mutations don't occur on demand, of course. But we can, and have, designed experiments where bacteria become resistant to antibiotics that we know they contain no pre-existing resistance to. That's mutations giving rise to new information. Period.
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.
But you haven't done that. You've simply asserted some untrue facts about one class of mutations, and then asserted, strangely, that another class of mutations never happens.
If you really believe that the two things have anything to do with each other then you're going to have to flesh it out for me. It simply doesn't follow logically the way you've presented it.
Information loss can be beneficial only if the environment makes it beneficial.
So too with information gain. Thus we know that the information change of a mutation has nothing to do with its beneficiality or harmfulness, and therefore information is not needed for macro-evolution. Only novel genetic sequences which we've both agreed are the result of mutation.
If you never get specified complexity then you will never get the right information for new organs.
But I've just proven that this isn't the case.
I guess I don't understand. Are you here to learn, or here to repeat yourself even in the face of research that refutes you? I thought you said you were open-minded.
tha enemy is now attacking will not eventually become a whole new sentence and be given the merit of specified complexity.
Here's two genetic sequences. Can you tell me which has more "Specified complexity"?
ATAAATGGCA
CGGCATAGCC
Do you understand why I keep asking you this? If you're not able to recognize specified complexity when you see it, then how can you make assertions about what increases or decreases it?

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

  
Morbert
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 195 (244808)
09-19-2005 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by robinrohan
06-15-2005 10:37 AM


Quote robinrohan : The whole concept is a little slippery to me. A species is defined as an isolated gene pool. But how did the life form get isolated? If we are talking about geographical isolation, then that in itself hardly seems enough to call it a separate species.
Which comes first, the isolation of the gene pool or the physical changes?
--
A Physical rift/barrier may not seem like much, but remember that the accumulation of mutations within each isolated population gradually result in two gene pools that can't "interact" with each other even if the physical barrier (such as a glacier) is removed, as their genes are simply no longer compatible for reproduction due to the changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 06-15-2005 10:37 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2005 11:25 PM Morbert has not replied

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


Message 134 of 195 (245059)
09-19-2005 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Morbert
09-19-2005 6:11 AM


welcome to the fray
as their genes are simply no longer compatible
all it takes is the {mating criteria perception} that the species are different for the later interactions to be blocked.
ring species for example.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Morbert, posted 09-19-2005 6:11 AM Morbert has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 135 of 195 (245525)
09-21-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
06-13-2005 2:36 PM


Ernst Mayr's position in-ing-in this question.
This is some "background" information from which I will draw on and comment on later in thie thread.
Second below is the section in Mayr’s biophilosophy book BEFORE he has the heading “Microevolution and Macroevolution” where in there he wrote,
quote:
The classical view of macroevolution held by Darwin and the majority of paleontologists up to the present day is that species, in the course of their gradual evolution in time, change to such a degree that they will become different genera , or taxa of still higher rank, and acquire in the process all the adaptations and specializations of the world of organic diversity. Viewing evolution strictly in the vertical dimension, as was done by most paleontologists including Simpson . This lead Gouldschmidt to his theory...These are inevitable connections between the phenomena studied by mathematical population geneticists and those macroevolutionary processes that are studied by paleontologists and comparative anatomists.
Such a connection can be established, however, by making use of the findings of population systematics, and of the horizontal approach to evolution, as studied by the new systematics, because they provide a perfect bridge between micro- and macroevolution. Rudiments of this demonstration can be found in Rensch’s writings and in my 1942 book.
quote:
Genetic Milieu
For the last 60 years - but one could say all the way back to Darwin (1859:11, 146; 1868 II:319-335) - two traditions of viewing the genotype can be distinguished. According to the anatomistic (“beanbag”) view, each gene is independent not only in its actions but also in the effects of selection on it. Evolutionary stasis of the phenotype, for instance, is explained by the stabilizing selection acting on individual genes. According to the holistic (integrative) view, genes perform as teams, and large numbers of other genes form the “genetic milieu” (Chetverikov 1926) of any given gene. Gene exchange at any locus may have an impact on the selective value of genes at other loci. Even though the atomists (reductionists) are fully aware of pleiotropy, polygeney, and other processes that produce the phenotype ( the target of selection) and that automatically result in a selectional interaction of genes, they ignore these processes in their evolutionary interpretations. Those others, however, who have stressed the genetic milieu (Chetverikov), genetic homeostasis(Lerner), internal balance(Mather), or the cohension of the geneotype (Mayr) have consistently looked at the impact of natural selection in a different way from those for whom the role of genes is essentially additive. The atomists, for instance, would treat developmental constraints and stabilizing selection as two separate problems , while for the “holists” the major cause of stabilizing selection is precisely the set of developmental constraints generated by the cohesion of the geneotype. Schmalhausen was fully aware of this, but the majority of geneticists, particularly the mathematical geneticists, ignore it because it makes calculations “messy.” Indeed, there is still no adequate methodology to analyze the controlling factors of cohesion.
The holists, thus , have introduced on major new factor into evolutionary theory, the internal structure of the genotype. They claim that much of macroevolution cannot be explained by atomistic gene replacements or by selection pressures on single genes but only by a more or less drastic reorganization of the geneotype made possible by loosening up the tight genetic cohesion of the geneotype that characterizes widespread populous species. (I should not say new because Darwin already defended such a viewpoint and it has been suggested again and again, almost invariably by evolutionists from the naturalist’s camp, although those who came to evolution via embryology, like Waddington and Goldschmidt, have expressed similar ideas.)
No one has made a stronger case in favor of the theory that a loosening up of the cohesion of the geneotype is an important and perhaps the decisive component in much of speciation than Carson (1975). His arguments powerfully support similar arguments made by authors from Darwin to Rensch, Lerner, Waddington, Mayr, and others.
Unless I go back to Mayr’s original citation of Hampton Carson’s work, I shall likely be referring populationally, no matter the classification to ,
quote:
The present discussion embraces all such shifts, although the emphasis will be placed on the radical departures. Profound changes such as the latter would be the type of change most conducive to the action of the genetic phenomena to be described. The ascending phase of population growth will be referred to as a “flush” and the subsequent fall as a “crash.” These terms will serve to emphasize the point, which will be made later, that crucial alterations in gene pools most likely to occur whenthe changes have the precipitate nature suggested by these rather dramatic terms.
p123 in Population Biology and Evolution by HLCarson.
One can get at the "logics" rather quickly if one concentrates on Mayr use of "constraint set" 'developed' but I do not think it generally a good pedagogical idea to go this far nonequilibrial wise to start discussing where Mayr had to seperate out Gouldschmidt rather than the language of mutations.
Error 404: Page Not Found | Harvard University Press
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-21-2005 04:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 06-13-2005 2:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024