Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,211 Year: 5,468/9,624 Month: 493/323 Week: 133/204 Day: 3/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 166 of 302 (319436)
06-09-2006 4:56 AM


Topic!
Abiogenesis has its own forum: Origin of Life. On a quick scan of the first page (at default page length) I see at least three threads on Miller's experiment. It has a strong tendency to derail threads entirely.
Also - it was probably inevitable, but this thread has become a free for all evolution topic. I don't think there is anything that can be done for it at this stage, I just ask that all participants at least read the Original Post so that they can get a feel of the intended topic here.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 167 of 302 (319437)
06-09-2006 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Rob
06-09-2006 2:13 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
The actual reactions happened entirely without human agency. If you want to argue that all god did was provide the right materials and the right conditions then there are many on these boards who will agree with you. But what you can't argue is that Urey-Miller doesn't show the formation of organic molecules important in life from inorganic precursors, which is all anyone has ever claimed it has done.
The point of Urey-Miller is that abiogenesis can occur with the right conditions, and that is all. It isn't meant to be an argument against creationism or intelligent design. It does however put the lie to those who claim that abiogenesis itself cannot happen except by magical acts of special creation where whole animals just spring fully formed from the air or the earth.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 2:13 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:27 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 168 of 302 (319438)
06-09-2006 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:43 PM


Re: AIG vs TO
But when someone makes this claim about AIG they are prepared to back it up with examples when asked. If you looked at the many AIG links Rob posted you would find very few references in most of them, and the majority of those to other pages on AIG itself or other creationist sources. On TO on the other hand the references are to the primary scientific literature and are generally fairly extensive.
So while you can make the claim just as well you would be hard put to back it up, as indeed you appear to be.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:43 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22694
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 169 of 302 (319449)
06-09-2006 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Rob
06-09-2006 1:57 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Rob writes:
I know it's just 1's and 0's, but doesn't the arrangement specify the function? And isn't that information non-periodic? And isn't that information meaningful to it's functions? And isn't it complex?
Information: Complex, Specified, non-periodic, meaningful text. (all definitions of information have these in common)
Examples of information: Telephone book
Bible
Software
Statistics (ask about this one)
Any spoken Language formed from simple characters into complex formulations and meaningful to communication.
Almost every line in the above is wrong. What you're describing is the way Dembski and Gitt define information, but their definition has found no acceptance within the scientific commuity and in fact is worthless and useless. They confuse information with knowledge and meaning. If you doubt this, use their definition to determine how much information is contained in the binary sequence "10". You won't be able to do it, because they provide no means for measuring information.
But the genuine definition of information does provide the means for measuring information. Information as a formal entity (not as we use it in casual conversation) is not knowledge or meaning. It has a formal definition originally proposed by Shannon in his landmark paper back in 1948.
First, to be very, very clear, information is *not*, repeat, *not* "Complex, Specified, non-periodic, meaningful text."
Information is defined in this way. If you have a set of messages that you want to communicate to someone else, information is the measure of the number of bits it takes to communicate one of those messages. It doesn't matter what the messages are, only that you know how many different messages there are.
Let us say that you have 4 messages you wish to be able to communicate to someone else. It doesn't matter what those messages are (in other words, the meaning doesn't matter), but to make the example clear let me define the messages:
  • I'm happy.
  • I'm sad.
  • I'm not home.
  • Please try later
Notice the numbering begins at 0. I did that for a reason. In order to communicate one of these messages to someone else who knows the number for each message, all you have to do is transmit one of those numbers. How many bits would it take to transmit one of those numbers.
The answer is log2 of the number of messages. Since the number of messages is 4, we find that:
log2 4 = 2 bits
So it takes 2 binary bits of information to transmit one of your four messages. So if you transmit the binary sequence "10" to your friend, which is binary for 2, he will know you mean the message numbered 2 in your list and that you're not home (presumably your computer sent this message for you in your absence).
Notice that there is nothing in the number of bits it takes to send a message that says anything about complexity or specification or periodic or meaning. The meaning is an interpretation that you and your friend have overlayed on top of the information. All you're actually transmitting is the bits "10". To you and your friend that means "I'm not home." But two other friends could define "10" to mean "Meet you at 8." The meaning of the message is irrelevant to the information problem.
This formal definition of information provides a way to compare amounts of information. Let us say you decide to increase the number of messages you can send your friend, and so you expand your message list:
  • I'm happy.
  • I'm sad.
  • I'm not home.
  • Please try later.
  • I'm playing a computer game.
  • I'm coming over.
There are now six messages in the list, so the amount of information is:
log2 6 = 2.59 bits
This is the same way that you can measure the amount of information in the genome of a population of organisms. Let's say that there's a population of squirrels on an island who can have one of two eye colors: brown and red. It takes one bit to represent two eye colors, so the amount of information for the eye color gene is one bit.
Now let us say a mutation for yellow eyes takes place somewhere in the population, so now there are three eye colors in the population. It takes 1.59 bits to represent 3 eye colors, as opposed to the 1 bit to represent 2 eye colors, so the amount of information in the population has increased from 1 bit to 1.59 bits.
Notice once again that the nature of the message, the eye color in this case, is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if the three eye colors were green, black and blue instead of brown, red and yellow. It is only the number of different colors (in other words, the number of different messages) that need to be communicated that governs how much information is involved. The nature of the messages is unimportant. As Shannon said right on page one of his paper:
Shannon writes:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
The examples you provided of information are actually examples of knowledge and meaning, like telephone books, the Bible and software. Information is much simpler (as a concept, not as a field of study - mathematically it quickly gets extremely complex). Any data that can be encoded into a system of messages is information, and that includes just about anything. The light from stars is information. Tree rings are information. Sound waves are information. DNA sequences are information. ASCII character sequences are information.
But the meaning of that information is not information: the meaning of information is knowledge, which is a completely different animal, and totally separate from the information problem.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Chiroptera, posted 06-09-2006 2:08 PM Percy has replied
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 10:53 PM Percy has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 170 of 302 (319458)
06-09-2006 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Rob
06-09-2006 2:13 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
No, that is not what he is saying at all.
What he is saying is that the natural conditions of the early atmosphere will , through normal chemical reactions, create the chemistry that is the basis for life.
If we look at the moon of Titan, we can see that an atmosphere that we beleive to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere has complex organtic molecules. This would be needed if life were for form from natural chemical reactions.
It titan wasn't so far out and cold, it too might have developed life.
Home – Physics World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 2:13 AM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 171 of 302 (319466)
06-09-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:52 PM


"Macro"evolution still undefined.
SWC writes:
Message 133
I have already said what macroevolution would be.
But, here are the major differences:
That's not a definition. That is just a list of your personal misunderstandings of evolution. No, you haven't defined what "macro"evolution would be. All you have said is what it would NOT be.
You have not demonstrated why it cannot be the accumulation of many "micro"evolutionary changes in species over time, and until you DO that you cannot CLAIM it is not such an accumulation.
*Microevolution makes tiny variations to a certain organism, these variations stay within the kind of the organism.
*Microevolution happens, it has been observed
*Microevolution is what I would call "variations within a kind"
You can call it anything you want, it is still change in species over time, so it is evolution. But at least we can start with examples of "micro"evolution, and not have you pretend it doesn't happen eh?
*But macroevolution would require big changes which would go outside the kind, and they wouldn't be just variations, they would be huge changes to the look and substance of an organism
*Macroevolution doesn't happen, has never been observed, and it can't happen
Macroevolution cannot happen, because the genetic code of an organism is preset, and it can't change with mutations to evolve or start evolving new organs or tissues or something. Because mutations are tiny changes that alter the code that is ALREADY existing.
Why and How? More to the point how NOT by accumulation of "micro"evolution?
Don't you get tired of making the same claim over and over and not providing any evidence, any reason for your claim other than your profound incredulity and pedestrian ignorance?
What prevents it? What is the {biological\genetic} obstacle that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution from happening? Where is the switch that says this little change is ok, but THAT little change take it outside "kind" and cannot happen? Other than in your mind.
That was not meant to be an argument.
ROFLOL.
SWC writes:
Message 134
The fossil record shows that all of the creatures, taxons, families, etc. appear suddenly. It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.
This is a false statement, you have been corrected on it, so repeating it is just repeating your previous mistake.
Repeating false statements does not make them any more valid the second or the hundreth time it is repeated.
SWC writes:
Message 140
I have already said, you keep ignoring it. I'm not going to post it hundreds of times. Please check back, I already said.
No you haven't defined what "macro"evolution is, you just keep repeating what you think it isn't, without regard for whether you are correct or not.
Evolution is change in species over time. That is all there is. It happens on a species to species level. After species have diverged there is NO mechanism that prevents further changes in either species, but they will always be related back to the species where they separated ways.
Lets take an example -- A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see picture)
{abe}


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
{/abe}
I think we can agree that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate?
Do you even know what I was talking about there? Or did you just go through and pick and choose at random without having a clue what I was talking about and to what I was replying?
Do you have a clue what you are saying?
The total effect is progressive, a cell evolving into a human. Sure, according to your beliefs it may have gone down and up, but the total effect is what I see, and it could only have come by through serious progression, this doesn't mean it couldn't go down at times.
You can call it "progressive" but that is only showing your human species egotism. What is it from the viewpoint of the bacteria? More food?
No, it is supported by facts, but I won't mention them here. Perhaps I will go to those forums you mentioned a little later and support this claim.
This is the second or third time that you have refused to substantiate an assertion of yours. A young earth is NOT supported by facts, the facts show just the opposite, and until you can show that is not so you are making an assertion that is contradicted by the facts (ie -- you are just plain wrong).
I wasn't making any assertions. I was pointing out how I could use the same reasoning an evolutionist used to put down AIG, to put down TO. It's a claim that can be flipped around right back at the person who used it.
That is an assertion. You made an assertion, you failed to substantiate or to defend your assertion when challenged.
as·ser·tion n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
You have done this again with the age of the earth. This is all your argument about "macro"evolution amounts to: an assertion on your part.
SWC, msg 146 writes:
Ok, here, you can go to my essay that I wrote, on my site, and read my essay, there I have my support for my claim about mutations not being able to do the job, as well as support for many of my other claims: Page Not Found - Webs
I'll read it tonight just for fun, but you might want to post it to a new topic to see how well it stands up in the real world: anyone can post whatever they like on a website, there is no need for any of it to be true eh?
So far all I have seen is one argument from incredulity and ignorance after another. Yawn.
I have work to get to ... see you later.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : fixed link
Edited by RAZD, : added picture

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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 146 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM RAZD has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5962 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 172 of 302 (319478)
06-09-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wounded King
06-09-2006 4:59 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Well, I know that what I was asking was whether anyone had a reference for an increase in genetic info durring mutations or cell division. All I got was a guy telling me I was mutating (not evolving) and people talking about how the first amino acids may have formed simple and biologically meaningless subcomponents.
As to that last point, You may wish to listen to Dean Kenyon, Biology professor at San Fransisco State (emeritus). Considering that he and his co-author, Gary Steinman, wrote the text to show that amino acids formed because of simple chemical laws, kenyon following quote is interesting (paraphrased).
After much testing, including a period of time at NASA Aims Reasearch center, we know know that amino acids do not have the ability to organize themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences. So we haven't the slightest chance for a chemical origin for life.
I probably butchered that quote, but you can watch him go into great detail and say these things yourself on a documentary called, 'Unlocking the mystery of life'. I didn't have the time to watch it right here and get it perfect.
My definition of information comes from Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley. Also got it from the same documentary that you guys don't need to watch, because these are all Christian universtities and aren't really doing science.

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 4:59 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 10:20 AM Rob has replied
 Message 176 by nwr, posted 06-09-2006 10:27 AM Rob has replied
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 10:56 AM Rob has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 173 of 302 (319479)
06-09-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Rob
06-09-2006 1:57 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Others have dealt with most of the errors or misunderstanding your post, but I'd like to deal with one other aspect.
Dembeski likes to pull the old complexity = information rabbit out of his hat and set it off hopping around the stage. He uses this as some magic trick to convince folk of ID. What is funny is that many folk here him speak, and he is a good speaker, and buy into the idea that something more complex is a sure sign of intellegence, even though they know that it is not true from personal experience.
I have been a software programmer, a system designer, and designed circuitry that extended over a 1000 miles. I can tell you that complexity does not equal information. Nor is complexity the product of intelligent design, that in fact the goal of intelligent design is simplicity.
If we look at any living thing, what we find is "just barely good enough".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:42 AM jar has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5962 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 174 of 302 (319484)
06-09-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
06-09-2006 9:31 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Like I said, you guys don't need to watch 'Unlocking the mystery of life. Or the great question and answer segment in the bonus material, where you can hear Dembski, Johnson, Behi, Meyers, Kenyon and others, explaining as simply as possible to those of you who like to convolute and obfuscate, why the they believe that intelligent design is true.
You boys simply label people and write them off because some other professor says there is a problem with their analysis.
Watch it yourself, it's at Amazon. They did a great job, and I concur with them as a free and independant thinker. The convention be damned...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 06-09-2006 9:31 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by ramoss, posted 06-09-2006 1:43 PM Rob has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 175 of 302 (319493)
06-09-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
06-09-2006 9:27 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Well, I know that what I was asking was whether anyone had a reference for an increase in genetic info durring mutations or cell division. All I got was a guy telling me I was mutating (not evolving) and people talking about how the first amino acids may have formed simple and biologically meaningless subcomponents.
Several people have asked for a specific definition of information, because without that they can't provide a reference which will accord with your views on what information is. There are a number of papers, not to mention simple maths, which can show that Shannon information can increase through a number of processes including duplication at various genomic level up to an including full genome duplications.
My definition of information comes from Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley.
Well you don't really seem to have given us that definition clearly anywhere in this thread, the closest you have got is saying...
It would be nice to see ACT evolve to TGCA. Just a litle is all I'm looking for. Got any references?
Which is not really very helpful, if all you want are mutations which increases the number of base pairs and/or substitute some bases then you can have references in abundance.
After much testing, including a period of time at NASA Aims Reasearch center, we know know that amino acids do not have the ability to organize themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences. So we haven't the slightest chance for a chemical origin for life.
The fact that amino acids do not spontaneously organise themselves into 'biologically meaningful' sequences does not mean that abiogenesis could not occur, protein first theories of abiogenesis are not those most commonly put forward because proteins do not, with some possible exceptions, exhibit the capacity for self replication.
If all these researchers are doing science then why are you unable to provide a reference from the scientific literature? The most recent citation from Pubmed for Dean Kenyon seems to be from 1976 ( (Kenyon and Nissenbaum, 1976) the only more recent thing I can find is an article in Origins and Design from 1996 (Mills and Kenyon, 1996). Is this the cutting edge of ID/creationist research?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:27 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 10:32 AM Wounded King has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 176 of 302 (319496)
06-09-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
06-09-2006 9:27 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
My definition of information comes from Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley.
Okay. So you go to a lawyer when you want a scientific definition. May I presume that you consult your dentist when you are looking for legal advice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:27 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 10:34 AM nwr has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5962 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 177 of 302 (319499)
06-09-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Wounded King
06-09-2006 10:20 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
There are a number of papers, not to mention simple maths, which can show that Shannon information can increase through a number of processes including duplication at various genomic level up to an including full genome duplications.
I'm growing weary quickly...
That's great! That's just wonderful.... I think all of us knew that duplication is possible. I want to see additional info in the genome. Not slight variation wihtin kind, where we see the same amount of information rearanged into a unique individual organism.
This is a complete waste of time...
Oh great, now he's back! The guy who says all information is abstraction. I see he just sent another abstraction... better check it out before I leave for work...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 10:20 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 11:01 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 11:22 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5962 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 178 of 302 (319501)
06-09-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by nwr
06-09-2006 10:27 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
One thing you can take to the bank... I won't consult you when seeking the truth...
Oh man by the way, I was 79,870 lbs yesturday and I hit this squirrel. Poor little guy never saw a thing. They're cute, but they're just not too bright!
Edited by Rob, : having a good time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by nwr, posted 06-09-2006 10:27 AM nwr has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 179 of 302 (319507)
06-09-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 7:52 PM


Re: Great example
Oh, I just want to tell you guys, I wrote a whole essay on the topic of evolution. So if you could read it, I won't have to repeat many of those things here. Here is where you will find it: Page Not Found - Webs
as your posts here have illustrated, you have been completely mislead about evolution and biology in general, and you keep repeating common low-level creationist pratts -- points refuted a thousand times.
Are you referring to the Pakicetus skull FRAGMENTS? Or do you have the whole skull?
Because Gingerich constructed a picture of the skull and Pakicetus with just 2 skull fragments!
false, and also a bad picture of what paleontology is. you're thinking of this lie by aig:
yet as even aig shows in another graphic, there is considerably more of the pakicetus skeleton than that:
the reason it's a bad representation of palenontology is that it completely misrepresents the science behind a skeletal reconstruction. we do not have pakicetus in isolation, and they are not just making stuff up out of thin air.
rather, we have another animal that looks nearly exactly like pakicetus: ambulocetus. the bones are homologous to a high enough degree that a reasonable guess at the missing segments can be made.
this is not circular logic. if evolution were not true, scientists would not be able to do this.
and you won't in amphibians, either. (because those are PECTORAL fins -- forelimbs. not hind legs)
So you said it, those are pectoral fins. Nothing else?! Not a transition? Not a leg? So is Tiktaliik invalid as a transitional form? Have you reached that conclusion?
no, i emphasized a word for a reason. it's the important word. they are PECTORAL, not HIND limbs. they do not have ball and socket joints or kneecaps. no tetrapod -- including you -- has a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, and a kneecap in your elbow.
No, it's only one. Not between anything. I don't see anything of a fin there.
so it's a fish, with a leg?
Of course fish don't have flippers! That's what I'm saying, it's probably not a fish or transition at all! Probably some kind of seal like creature with flippers.
this is what i mean about having no knowledge about biology in general. it's not a seal-like creature. seals are mammals. this is something with a skull showing both fish and amphibian anatomy, an amphibian neck joint, gill structurs, and stubby legs that highly resemble lobed fins (as in a coelacanth) that would have been largely incapable of walking on land.
Hand? Fingers? Could you show me? I didn't see that.
i did. there's a picture a few pages back.
But how can you be so sure? They look more like flippers to me than some super sized fin-legs.
i can be sure, because i know what a flipper, a hand, and a fin are. just because you know very little about anatomy doesn't mean the scientists don't either.
No, actually, I know a little more about biology than other science topics.
i'll remember not to bring up chemistry or physics then.
But the rear end holds much needed information to tell us what Tiktaliik really is!
if you found half a fish, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half a newt, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half something that looked like both a newt and a fish, would the rest of it be important to telling you it was something similar to both a fish and a newt?
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 7:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22694
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 180 of 302 (319508)
06-09-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
06-09-2006 9:27 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Rob writes:
Well, I know that what I was asking was whether anyone had a reference for an increase in genetic info during mutations or cell division.
First, be sure you've read and understood my Message 169. You have to read this first because it provides the correct definition of information and explains how to measure it.
Now I'll explain how you get an increase in the amount of genetic information in a population. My previous Message 169 provided a simple example of a squirrel population, and I'm going to build upon that example.
This squirrel population originally had two eye colors, brown and red (for lurkers who understand this already, I'm going to purposefully ignore the dominant/recessive issues to keep things simple). Let's imagine that these colors are encoded in the genome by these nucleotide sequences:
  • CATGTC: brown
  • AGCTAA: red
This means that every squirrel in the population has either the CATGTC sequence for brown, or the AGCTAA sequence for red.
Let's say that one young squirrel is born with a mutation in this gene. Its parents were both brown-eyed and possessed the CATGTC sequence for brown, but a small reproductive error caused this baby squirrel to have the sequence TATGTC. So now there are three different colors that can be represented by this new sequence. Let's say that the baby squirrel has yellow eyes, so now the sequences and their colors are:
  • CATGTC: brown
  • AGCTAA: red
  • TATGTC: yellow
Where before there were just two eye colors in the population's genome there are now three. Where before the amount of information required to specify two eye colors was:
log2 2 = 1 bit
The amount of information required to specify three eye colors is:
log2 3 = 1.59 bits
So the amount of information for the eye color gene has increased from 1 bit to 1.59 bits, an increase of 0.59 bits.
And that's how mutations can increase genetic information in a population!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:27 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 10:59 AM Percy 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