Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 137 of 367 (31980)
02-11-2003 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
02-11-2003 1:22 PM


Pecipient says:
If you think through the examples and the explanations that have been provided to you, you'll see that Gitt is wrong. The simplest example of creation of new information is any simple copying error in a gene during reproduction.
PB: Dear P, if you think through examples and the explanations that have been given to you, you'll see that YOU are wrong. It only requires a close up look at genetic redundancies, i.e. the alpha actinin gene or the src gene family. And as long as there is no association with duplication and redundancies it is your theory that is in trouble not Sonnike. How many times do I have to reiterate this. Till the end of days, I guess.
Percipient: If the gene is unique then it represents a new allele not previously present in the population, ie, new information.
PB: A unique gene? Where did it come from, then? And, it would be great that you are able to demonstrate an observed example. "If the gene is not unique, what then? Wanna have a look at the src family of phosphatases, and how they violate your idea? Just let me know.
Percipient: Where the population previously had n alleles for that
gene it now has n+1. The longer explanation is in Message 64.
PB: Point is where did you get n? n+1 is easy to understand.
Percipient: Before you imbue Gitt's views with any credibility you should first answer for yourself how Gitt could be right when almost any reproductive copying error can add information.
PB: Before we believe you, please give a couple of information adding errors. Are these really 'errors' or NRM? In the MPG? GUToB?
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 02-11-2003 1:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 02-11-2003 7:51 PM peter borger has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 138 of 367 (31982)
02-11-2003 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by peter borger
02-11-2003 6:53 PM


peter borger writes:
Dear P, if you think through examples and the explanations that have been given to you, you'll see that YOU are wrong. It only requires a close up look at genetic redundancies, i.e. the alpha actinin gene or the src gene family. And as long as there is no association with duplication and redundancies it is your theory that is in trouble not Sonnike. How many times do I have to reiterate this. Till the end of days, I guess.
This looks like a bunch of disconnected assertions. I think that if you respond to the example in Message 64 that your objections might become more clear to me.
A unique gene? Where did it come from, then?
It should have been clear from the context, but in case not, I was referring to the creation of a new sequence of base pairs in the gene which if unique would be a new allele. If a population had n alleles in the gene before, it now has n+1, which would represent new information.
Point is where did you get n? n+1 is easy to understand.
n is the number of unique alleles for the gene in the population. n+1 is the number after one of the alleles experiences a mutation yielding a unique base sequence not previously available.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 6:53 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:41 PM Percy has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 139 of 367 (31990)
02-11-2003 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
02-11-2003 7:51 PM


Dear Perciepient,
Letter #64 is utter speculation. Is is theoretical biology. I could have made that up. However, as soon as one translates it into biology it doesn't work. As demonstrated for the alpha actinin genes. And if you like we could have a look at the 8 members of the src gene family. Although individual members can be knocked out in animal models they cannot be explained by gene duplication since point mutations give rise to lethal phenotypes. A nice piece of created redundancy.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 02-11-2003 7:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 02-12-2003 8:06 AM peter borger has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 140 of 367 (32026)
02-12-2003 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by peter borger
02-11-2003 9:41 PM


peter borger writes:
Letter #64 is utter speculation. Is is theoretical biology.
Base substitution during reproduction is "utter speculation"? It is *the* most basic type of mutation, and even your own GUToB with its NRM accepts base substitution. You must have misunderstood something in Message 64, for it postulates nothing more complicated than that. I'll explain again.
Let's say that after reproduction the offspring finds it has a single base substitution in one of its genes. The new base sequence is different from any of the existing alleles for that gene in the organism's population. Since the population had n alleles for that gene before, it now has one additional, yielding a new total of n+1 alleles. This is more information than existed in the population's gene pool before.
Like you, Sonnikke also asked for an example, and I suggested that he try this search at Google:
"bacterial evolution" "base substitution"
As I commented at the time, some of the hits are examples of base substitutions resulting in new phenotypes, such as this one:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 9:41 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 7:21 PM Percy has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 141 of 367 (32029)
02-12-2003 8:30 AM


An individual writes:
quote:
Letter #64 is utter speculation. Is is theoretical biology. I could have made that up.
Moving past the hilarious irony...
quote:
Although individual members can be knocked out in animal models they cannot be explained by gene duplication since point mutations give rise to lethal phenotypes. A nice piece of created redundancy.
"Point mutations give rise to lethal phenotypes."
Sometimes. Not all the time. The problem with making absolutist claims is that they are extremely easy to refute.
The individual in question is thus refuted, for it all to obvious that point mutations do in fact NOT "give rise to lethal phgenotypes" all the time, as implied.

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 142 of 367 (32030)
02-12-2003 8:33 AM


Of interest:
J Mol Evol 2003 Jan;56(1):1-10
The alpha-Actinin Gene Family: A Revised Classification.
Dixson JD, Forstner MJ, Garcia DM.
Southwest Texas State University, 78666, San Marcos, TX, USA, jamie.dixson@excite.com
The sequencing of a genome is the first stage of its complete characterization. Subsequent work seeks to utilize available sequence data to gain a better understanding of the genes which are found within a genome. Gene families comprise large portions of the genomes of higher vertebrates, and the available genomic data allow for a reappraisal of gene family evolution. This reappraisal will clarify relatedness within and between gene families. One such family, the alpha-actinin gene family, is part of the spectrin superfamily. There are four known loci, which encode alpha-actinins 1, 2, 3, and 4. Of the eight domains in alpha-actinin, the actin-binding domain is the most highly conserved. Here we present evidence gained through phylogenetic analyses of the highly conserved actin-binding domain that alpha-actinin 2 was the first of the four alpha-actinins to arise by gene duplication, followed by the divergence of alpha-actinin 3 and then alpha-actinins 1 and 4. Resolution of the gene tree for this gene family has allowed us to reclassify several alpha-actinins which were previously given names inconsistent with the most widely accepted nomenclature for this gene family. This reclassification clarifies previous discrepancies in the public databases as well as in the literature, thus eliminating confusion caused by continued misclassification of members of the alpha-actinin gene family. In addition, the topology found for this gene family undermines the 2R hypothesis theory of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate evolution.
Emphases mine.
Who to believe?
Sonnike, what say you?
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-12-2003]

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 367 (32046)
02-12-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by derwood
02-11-2003 12:22 PM


quote:
And therein lies the rub. This is an example of arguing via pseudoauthority. Gitt is in fact not a "leading information scientist." He is a creationist information technologist. A glorified computer programmer, basically. Gitt simply ignores/refuses to accept that anything but a "conscious mind" can generate new information. He is mistaken. Motoo Kimura, an actual scientist, demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that, in fact, mutation and natural selection can add new information to the gene pool ("Natural Selection as the process of accumulation of genetic information in adaptive evolution." Genetical Research 2, 127-140. 1961. Kimura, M.)
. Naturally. In addition, many creationists accept that there are natural means by which new information can be added (they just argue that it doesn't happen much..).
I'm short on time (ie. at work) but that was clearly a good demonstration of a smokescreen ad hominem.
quote:
That is, for example, how is it that a lawyer can know that what he and his pals claim regarding evolutionary biology is correct when this lawyer admits that he has litle knowledge of the topic?
The answer is, of course, he cannot.
The claims might be correct, but he has no way of knowing, but insists that they ARE correct nonetheless.
Here is a nice axample of a non-sequitur. Of course a brilliant lawyer can know whether what he is saying is correct, he just has to do some research (which I am sure Dr. Johnson does lots of...you were talking about him right?)
Finally, your examples (at least the first one) have been dealt with at this forum already in another posting.
Just so we are clear, Werner Gitt's bio:
"The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be:
A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title.
One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.
Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed." Werner Gitt, Information Science | Answers in Genesis
and
"Werner Gitt
Creationist
Information science
Doctorate in engineering summa cum laude from the Technical University of Aachen
Diploma in engineering from the Technical University of Hanover
Borchers Medal from the Technical University of Aachen
Author of numerous research papers dealing with information science, numerical mathematics, and control engineering
Author of In the Beginning Was Information
Director and professor, and Head of the Department of Information Technology, at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology"
Werner Gitt (biographical information) - Creation SuperLibrary - ChristianAnswers.Net
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 135 by derwood, posted 02-11-2003 12:22 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 02-13-2003 8:21 AM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 144 of 367 (32047)
02-12-2003 2:34 PM


quote:
quote:
And therein lies the rub. This is an example of arguing via pseudoauthority. Gitt is in fact not a "leading information scientist." He is a creationist information technologist. A glorified computer programmer, basically. Gitt simply ignores/refuses to accept that anything but a "conscious mind" can generate new information. He is mistaken. Motoo Kimura, an actual scientist, demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that, in fact, mutation and natural selection can add new information to the gene pool ("Natural Selection as the process of accumulation of genetic information in adaptive evolution." Genetical Research 2, 127-140. 1961. Kimura, M.)
. Naturally. In addition, many creationists accept that there are natural means by which new information can be added (they just argue that it doesn't happen much..).
I'm short on time (ie. at work) but that was clearly a good demonstration of a smokescreen ad hominem.
How so?
You have argued via pseudoauthority. That is, you are basing the supposed 'correctness' of the assertions on the supposed fact that Gitt is a "world's leading information scientists". I indicate that he is not. I am simply responding to the crux of your claim - that because Gitt says so, it is true by virtue of him being a "world's leading information scientist."
Please address my concerns - Why can one not find mention of him at university, industry, or association Information scinece web sites?
it stands to reason that somewhere we could find mention of such a "world leading information scientist."
Does it not?
quote:
quote:
That is, for example, how is it that a lawyer can know that what he and his pals claim regarding evolutionary biology is correct when this lawyer admits that he has litle knowledge of the topic?
The answer is, of course, he cannot.
The claims might be correct, but he has no way of knowing, but insists that they ARE correct nonetheless.
Here is a nice axample of a non-sequitur. Of course a brilliant lawyer can know whether what he is saying is correct, he just has to do some research (which I am sure Dr. Johnson does lots of...you were talking about him right?)
Apparently, you have not read any of his books. They ar brimming with half-truths, errors of omission, misrepresentations, etc.
Try here, for example:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho19.htm
Oh - and embellishment ("brilliant lawyer") noted. Gotta keep up the facade, eh?
So, anyway, tell us all how YOU are able to make such conclusions.
quote:
Finally, your examples (at least the first one) have been dealt with at this forum already in another posting.
Just so we are clear, Werner Gitt's bio:
"The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be:
A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title.
One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.
Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed." Werner Gitt, Information Science | Answers in Genesis
and
"Werner Gitt
Creationist
Information science
Doctorate in engineering summa cum laude from the Technical University of Aachen
Diploma in engineering from the Technical University of Hanover
Borchers Medal from the Technical University of Aachen
Author of numerous research papers dealing with information science, numerical mathematics, and control engineering
Author of In the Beginning Was Information
Director and professor, and Head of the Department of Information Technology, at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology"
Werner Gitt (biographical information) - Creation SuperLibrary - ChristianAnswers.Net
So, you are basically arguing from authority then, and cannot assess whether or not Gitt's claims regarding biological information have merit.
Again, if Gitt is such a "world's leading information scientists", why then is he not mentioned anywhere but creationist web sites?
As I emphasized in the 'bio' of him you present, he is an information TECHNOLOGIST, not an information scientist. There IS a difference, just as there is a difference between a lab technician and a lab scientist.
Doing a pubmed search for Gitt, wherein one might expect to find publicatyions dealing with biological information, one gets ZERO returns.
Again, odd for one of the "world's leading information scientists", don't you think?
If you are going to argue from authority, thern the legitimacy of that "authority" is fair to be called into question.
It is not an ad hominem, it is an attempt to air the truth.
And sometimes the truth is not what you had hoped for.
And, again, do you not find it odd that Gitt is the only "information technologist" (besides self-proclaimed information scinece expert creationists) that believes that information must come form a conscious mind?
And, yet again, how is it that you believe Gitt to be right and everyone else, including an ACTUAL "world's leading population geneticist" (Kimura, not to mention Tom Schneider), wrong?

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 1:21 AM derwood has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 145 of 367 (32062)
02-12-2003 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
02-12-2003 8:06 AM


dear Percy,
Your reference does not show what you claim. They are all about recombination and horizontal gene tranfer (it is GUToB). Maybe you could point out where you read that point mutations lead to new phenotypes. That would be great. Thanks,
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 02-12-2003 8:06 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 02-13-2003 7:53 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 156 by derwood, posted 02-13-2003 3:29 PM peter borger has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 367 (32076)
02-13-2003 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by derwood
02-12-2003 2:34 PM


SLPx, you are avoiding the issue by focusing on the man, ergo ad hominem.
The problem is not that Dr. Gitt is not a world leading information scientist, but rather that the scientific community (pro-evo) does not like what he has to say.
Lets look at this another way.
Perhaps you will answer these questions:
1. how often do mutations occur?
2. what is the most common result due to mutations?
3. how many beneficial mutations can you describe?
Thanks,
S.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by derwood, posted 02-12-2003 2:34 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2003 2:49 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 148 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 5:34 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 157 by derwood, posted 02-13-2003 3:36 PM DanskerMan has replied

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


Message 147 of 367 (32087)
02-13-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by DanskerMan
02-13-2003 1:21 AM


If you rely on Gitt's authority then discussion of his claim to authority is entirely relevant. If such discussion were illegtimiate as you argue I could claim to be the worlds leading expert on any subject I liked and you would have to accept it as true.
Did it ever cross your mind that the scientific community dislike what Gitt has to say because what Gitt has to say is no good ?
Here's a question for oyu. Since DNA is read solely by "mechanical" means, involving no intelligence, can it be shown to be "information" in Gitt's sense ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 1:21 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2003 8:01 AM PaulK has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 148 of 367 (32096)
02-13-2003 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by DanskerMan
02-13-2003 1:21 AM


quote:
Lets look at this another way.
Perhaps you will answer these questions:
1. how often do mutations occur?
2. what is the most common result due to mutations?
3. how many beneficial mutations can you describe?
1. On average every one has four new genetic differences from
their parents
http://abcnews.go.com/...ience/DailyNews/mutation990127.html
2.It is suggested that most mutations are detrimental. However, one
should remember that any that are fatal are immediately taken out
of the equation, that (in sexually reproducing organisms at least)
it is likely that many 'bad' mutations will cause non- or dis-functional gametes.
Where we are not talking about 'viability' the question of
benefit is related to the environment. Is sickle cell genetically
bad or good? Running fast might be good for evading prey or bad
for avoiding chasms.
3.Beneficial with respect to what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 1:21 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 02-13-2003 8:00 AM Peter has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 149 of 367 (32103)
02-13-2003 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by peter borger
02-12-2003 7:21 PM


peter borger writes:
Maybe you could point out where you read that point mutations lead to new phenotypes.
Uh, I did. In the very email you replied to. Which was already a repeat of an earlier post. For the third time, you can try this search at Google:
"bacterial evolution" "base substitution"
Some of the hits are examples of base substitutions resulting in new phenotypes, such as this one about yeast:
On a more fundamental level, what's to prevent a single base substitution resulting in a new phenotype? DNA is merely the encoding for protein production. Some base substitution mutations will produce the same protein, some will produce a modified protein that does essentially the same thing as the original, and some will produce a protein that changes the phenotype.
But to return to the original point, whether or not a base substitution results in a new phenotype, if it occurs in a gene and is not identical to an existing allele, then it's a new allele and has increased the number of alleles for the gene by one, ie, new information. It's new information even if it isn't expressed in the phenotype. Another base substitution to the new allele will not necessarily yield the same result as the same base substitution to the other alleles.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 7:21 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 6:56 PM Percy has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 367 (32105)
02-13-2003 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Peter
02-13-2003 5:34 AM


It is my understanding that the most common result due to mutations is nothing. No effect.
However, I personally have a mutation which prevented my lower wisdom teeth from ever developing. They do not exist, in other words.
Now, was this a beneficial mutation? Since I was born in an age of good dental hygene and dentistry and orthodontics, yes, it most certainly was a beneficial mutation. Because we eat softer food and prevent most tooth loss compared to even a few hundred years ago, I still had all of my adult teeth when my upper wisdom teeth came in, minus the two in my upper jaw which had been extracted to make room for other teeth to be moved orthodontically.
So, I had no impaction or pain or infection often associated with the advent of wisdom teeth for a great many people these days.
However, if I had been born a long time ago when wisdom teeth were needed because some of my teeth would have fallen out or been worn down, then it would not have been a beneficial mutation at all. I would have not had the benefit of brand new, strong grinding surfaces to eat with, and those upper wisdom teeth would not have had room, because those extractions and orthodontic shifts in location would not have happened.
So, this is a good illustration of how you can't determine if a mutation is beneficial to an organism without taking the environment into account. It is the environment which determines what mutations are of benefit to the individual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 5:34 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 8:28 AM nator has not replied
 Message 161 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 7:03 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 151 of 367 (32106)
02-13-2003 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by PaulK
02-13-2003 2:49 AM


Here is what the Information Technology Department at PTB actually does:
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
Not exactly a position one would expect to find occupied by an expert in Information Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2003 2:49 AM PaulK 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