|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where is the evidence for evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:LOL...love those bloody englishmen. Haven't we been thru this before? The barrier is that there is only so much information in the genome, and the information required to change a fish into a reptile say, is NOT THERE, and it will NEVER generate by random mutation and natural selection. Let me ask you something, why do you presume that it could happen in 60,000 generations? cheers,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: So, according to your "limited information" idea, where did the information come from to change one species of salmon into two? PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:First of all, the article is clear that they can still interbreed, and that it's not really a separate species as you might like: "Hendry says that the differences documented are less than those typically used to delineate separate species. The key focus of this paper is that the processes leading to speciation can happen much more quickly than anyone had previously supposed, he says." To answer your question, the information that allowed this variation was programmed in the genome from the beginning. Nothing new was added. Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
sonnikke writes: The barrier is that there is only so much information in the genome, and the information required to change a fish into a reptile say, is NOT THERE, and it will NEVER generate by random mutation and natural selection. Mutation has the ability to add new information. Some common mutational mechanisms that produce new information are base substitutions, gene duplication, gene insertion, transposons, chromosome duplication, and a host of other copying errors. Even mutations that simply replace one nucleotide with another are examples of new information, because the new nucleotide sequence represents a new allele not previously present in the population (an allele is a type of a specific gene, such as the gene for eye color, one allele for blue, another for brown, etc) Here's a simple example of the process of creating new information by substituting a single nucleotide. Let's consider a single gene, call it the X gene, in a population. This gene has only two alleles, call them A and B, and let's say these are the nucleotide sequences for the two alleles:
A: AAGCTTGTAACAA B: CCGTCATTCGATC During reproduction let's say a mutation occurs in one nucleotide of allele B, thereby producing new allele C, so now the population's gene pool has increased in size by one allele (note that C differs from B in only a single nucleotide):
A: AAGCTTGTAACAA B: CCGTCATTCGATC C: CCGTCACTCGATC Does the new allele produce a difference in the organism's phenotype (phenotype means all characteristics of an organism, including morphological, chemical, psychological, etc)? Perhaps. And if it does, will it increase or decrease the organisms likelihood to survive to reproduce? That's what natural selection will decide. Mutation is the source of new information, and natural selection is the pruning mechanism that decides which mutations pass on to the next generation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:(emphasis added) Gee, if I didn't know any better, I would say that it sounds an awful lot like INTELLIGENCE that which you are describing.Words like "source", "pruning mechanism" and "decides"....doesn't sound like a random un-guided naturalistic accidental phenomenon to me... Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
quote:You're telling us that you do know better? You're just playing word games, Sonnike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:I'm not the one who attributed intelligent characteristics to the mystical "evo-force"... S. ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chavalon Inactive Member |
Mutation is the source by random variation in DNA. Natural selection is the differential survival of the variants - some branches of the tree of life grow, some wither, some snap off. This is determined by the interaction between organisms and their environment.
English was invented by creationists, and that's the vocabulary we have to work with in everyday speech. It can always be translated into something more precise if need be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1875 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Son:
"To answer your question, the information that allowed this variation was programmed in the genome from the beginning. Nothing new was added." Please explain this for us. Please start with: Evidence that the information for the speciation of the salmon in question was present from the beginning. WHAT, exactly, this information is. You must know, for otherwise you would not have claimed that it was already there. Explain why "no new information" can arise naturalistically.To answer this, start by providing a biologically relevant definiton of "information." Support the above responses with verifiable scientific sources. Thanks. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-04-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Sonnikke: I'm not the one who attributed intelligent characteristics to the mystical "evo-force"...
You're the only one to suggest it. But anyone who actually understands the "information argument" knows that it is just a bogus piece of obfuscation. And by the way you're evading discussion it looks like you know that as well as anyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
SLPx, would any answer actually satisfy you and possibly convince you?
S. ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Thanks, Chavalon. Much more concise than I ever could have been!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5194 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonnike,
quote: SLPx is under no obligation to answer this. You have made an assertion, the burden of evidence resides with you. If Dr Page will allow me to repeat his question:
quote: If you can't provide evidence of this, Sonnike, no one is obliged to accept your argument any more than you would accept pink fairies push the earth around the sun. http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html Futuyma refers to an experiment where a lactose cleaving enzyme was knocked out. The bacteria were then cultured on a lactose bearing substrate. Predictably, most died, but every now and again a culture flourished, & it wasn't just a new lactose cleaving enzyme that evolved, either.......... "Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, 1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.] Strange that new function can evolve when it DEFINATELY never existed in the parent population. Surely, according to you, the only way this could happen if there were pre-existing genetic information in the genome. This was eliminated, so it can't be true. If there were "intelligent" mutations, one would expect many/all cultures to survive, this wasn't the case. Conclusion: RM & NS resulted in the population wide existence of an enzyme that cleaves lactose, an enzyme expression control system, & a control for the associated permease. It wasn't there when the experiment started. This contradicts your claim that the information for new function must pre-exist in genomes, or am I misunderstanding? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
sonnikke writes: Gee, if I didn't know any better, I would say that it sounds an awful lot like INTELLIGENCE that which you are describing.Words like "source", "pruning mechanism" and "decides"....doesn't sound like a random un-guided naturalistic accidental phenomenon to me... The sun is a "source" of light, and sometimes my car "decides" to break down? Are they intelligent, too? You asserted that evolution couldn't create new information, and I provided an explanation and an example of how random mutation does what you said it couldn't do. Do you have a reply? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: Percy, could you give a real life example of this? S.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024