Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 367 (31294)
02-04-2003 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Karl
02-04-2003 12:07 PM


quote:
Karl: One salmon species becoming two.
Wait for the wails "but they're still salmon!"
Of course they bloody are! This is only 60 generations.
Now tell me. What is the barrier that stops much larger changes occuring over 60,000 generations?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Karl, posted 02-04-2003 12:07 PM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-04-2003 12:31 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 2:39 PM DanskerMan has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 367 (31295)
02-04-2003 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 12:27 PM


quote:
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.
So, according to your "limited information" idea, where did the information come from to change one species of salmon into two?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 12:27 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 2:15 PM Primordial Egg has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 367 (31315)
02-04-2003 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Primordial Egg
02-04-2003 12:31 PM


quote:
So, according to your "limited information" idea, where did the information come from to change one species of salmon into two?
PE
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-04-2003 12:31 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-05-2003 10:22 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 367 (31321)
02-04-2003 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 12:27 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 12:27 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 3:50 PM Percy has replied
 Message 75 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 1:09 AM Percy has replied
 Message 183 by DanskerMan, posted 02-15-2003 1:32 AM Percy has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 367 (31330)
02-04-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
02-04-2003 2:39 PM


quote:
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
(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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 2:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 02-04-2003 4:24 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 68 by Chavalon, posted 02-04-2003 4:40 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:52 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 66 of 367 (31336)
02-04-2003 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 3:50 PM


quote:
Gee, if I didn't know any better, I would say that it sounds an awful lot like INTELLIGENCE that which you are describing.
You're telling us that you do know better?
You're just playing word games, Sonnike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 3:50 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 4:38 PM Coragyps has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 367 (31338)
02-04-2003 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
02-04-2003 4:24 PM


quote:
You're telling us that you do know better?
You're just playing word games, Sonnike.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 02-04-2003 4:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by derwood, posted 02-04-2003 4:42 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2003 4:57 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 367 (31340)
02-04-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 3:50 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 3:50 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 02-04-2003 5:31 PM Chavalon has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 69 of 367 (31341)
02-04-2003 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 4:38 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 4:38 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 5:01 PM derwood has replied
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 1:22 AM derwood has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 70 of 367 (31345)
02-04-2003 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 4:38 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 4:38 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 367 (31346)
02-04-2003 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by derwood
02-04-2003 4:42 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by derwood, posted 02-04-2003 4:42 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 02-04-2003 5:58 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 126 by derwood, posted 02-10-2003 9:45 AM DanskerMan has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 72 of 367 (31355)
02-04-2003 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Chavalon
02-04-2003 4:40 PM


Thanks, Chavalon. Much more concise than I ever could have been!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Chavalon, posted 02-04-2003 4:40 PM Chavalon has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 367 (31360)
02-04-2003 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 5:01 PM


Sonnike,
quote:
SLPx, would any answer actually satisfy you and possibly convince you?
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:
"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."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 5:01 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 74 of 367 (31374)
02-04-2003 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 3:50 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 3:50 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 367 (31382)
02-05-2003 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
02-04-2003 2:39 PM


quote:
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
Percy, could you give a real life example of this?
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 2:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 02-05-2003 8:41 AM DanskerMan 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