Where is the evidence for evolution?

This is where the argument from authority fallacy often leads, to brawls about credentials. This fallacious debate tactic is often effective because it diverts attention from the original topic. Rather than saying Gitt is correct because he's a "leading information scientist", you should instead argue that he's correct because his research is sound. Is his research sound? The only place Gitt gets a hearing is in non-scientific and religious circles, so I guess not.But why is that the case? Is the scientific community biased against positions that are scientifically valid but have religious overtones? Or is there something fundamentally wrong with Gitt's assertion that evolution cannot create new information?The latter is the case, of course. Gitt can argue information theory all he likes, but the simple fact of the matter is that the very process he claims information theory deems impossible has been observed to occur. Gitt asserts that evolution cannot produce new information, and yet not only does the genetic evidence argue otherwise, not only do the simple mechanics of genetic reproduction argue otherwise, but the actual process itself has been observed and documented.In other words, as long as Gitt makes theoretical arguments against an observed and established process, nobody in the scientific community is going to bother giving his views much attention.--Percy

My point exactly.Just on a pedantic note (though relevent to consideration of
environment) if memory serves most medieval european skulls have
quite excellent teeth ... probably because there was little sugar to rot them.Pedantry apart though benefit or not is a relationship to
environment not a fundamental feature of a mutation (or at
least to a viable mutation).

I can look this up later-- I have to go to work now -- but if memory serves, the wisdom tooth problem has more to do with the restructuring of our face and jaw than with the replacing of worn teeth. Compare the jutting jaws of other primates with the tiny human jaw.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

http://EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution? -->EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution?chirp... chirp....

quote:

---

Sonnike:

​

SLPx, you are avoiding the issue by focusing on the man, ergo ad hominem.

---

As others have pointed out, and I already explained but will do again, if you are going to argue that Gitt is right solelybecause of his supposed "authority" on the subject, then this supposed "authority" is a legitmate target.As I demonstrated, there are ZERO publications on biological information available in one of the more popular scientific literature search engines.Odd, if he is this leading authority, as you continue to insist.

quote:

---

The problem is not that Dr. Gitt is not a world leading information scientist,

---

You are right, that is no problem at all, because Gitt is in fact not the authority you need/want him to be.

quote:

---

but rather that the scientific community (pro-evo) does not like what he has to say.

---

Please tell us where the "pro-evo" scientific community has access to what he has to say.His vanity press creationist book?Creationist web sites?For those are the ONLY places, it seems, that one can read anything from this "leading expert" on anything having to do with information and biology.Cough up some refs, please, or stand corrected and refuted.

quote:

---

Lets look at this another way.
Perhaps you will answer these questions:

---

Others have addressed this. However, before I do, I will need to know whether or not you will be able to objectively assess the answers given. That is, can you address the issues, or will you rely upon what are quite possibly a pre-selected series of quotes and links from creationist sources to do your 'thinking' for you?

quote:

---

1. how often do mutations occur?

---

rarely.

quote:

---

2. what is the most common result due to mutations?

---

No result - most are neutral.

quote:

---

3. how many beneficial mutations can you describe?

---

Tell me what you consider to be beneficial.Then tell me how YOU would find them.------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

So if mutations are rare and have no effect, what is the legitimate reasoning behind using them as the backbone for creating new raw material for species advancement?Also, most diseases, are they not caused by mutations?Finally, why do you (along w/ everybody else) throw the "beneficial mutation" question back at me?Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

sonnike:
So if mutations are rare and have no effect, what is the legitimate reasoning behind using them as the backbone for creating new raw material for species advancement?

---

Careful please.I wrote that most are neutral, and they are rare.
You have to remember that we are not talking about individuals, we are talking about populations evolving. So, while a mutationmight be rare in an individual, in a population mutations are far more likely to occur.This is why those "impossibility of abiogenesis" claims are irrelevant - they are (at least ALL of the ones I have seen) based on 1-trial events. They neglect the fact that there would likely have been millions of such 'trials' every second.Look at a lottery - buy one ticket, you have a pretty slim chance of winning. Buy 100 million and you will most likely possess a winning ticket.Same idea with abiogenesis.Same idea with mutations within a population.

quote:

---

Also, most diseases, are they not caused by mutations?

---

Most genetic diseases are (all of them, actually) are, sure.The flu, however, does not.Of couse, it is relatively easy to find a genetic cause for a disease. But do diseases take away limbs? That is, anti-evolution?Since the claimed 'requirement' for evolution, as described by creationists, is 'beneficial mutations' that do things like produce 'new body parts', why then do not detrimental mutations - genetic diseases - cause a substraction of body parts?Take away the ability to appreciate music, etc.?

quote:

---

Finally, why do you (along w/ everybody else) throw the "beneficial mutation" question back at me?

---

See above.It also comes back to the definition issue.Creationists, as I described in a previous post, often produce and insist on using their own personal definitons for things. I call it argument via personal definition.If you are using a term one way and everyone else uses it the right way, you can see how difficulties can arise.So, please define for us YOUR use of "beneficial mutation."

Dear Percy,Percy: 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"PB: Yep, I did that and I know what I found: more evidence for GUToB.Percy: Some of the hits are examples of base substitutions resulting in new phenotypes, such as this one about yeast:UNIL - Erreur 404PB: Apparently you have better eyes than I have since I couldn't find the example. Please provide the title of the abstract, than I will look into it.Percy: On a more fundamental level, what's to prevent a single base substitution resulting in a new phenotype?PB: You know the difference between phenotype and genotype, I hope.Percy: DNA is merely the encoding for protein production.PB: You should also read Caporale's book. It saves me a lot of reiteration. DNA is NOT merely for encoding protein production. Live reduced to protein production? Selfish protein production, I guess.Percy: 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.PB: Changes in phenotype is evolution? I already mentioned that this is the big trick of evo's:
"The problem with evolutionists is that they only have one term for several unequal phenomena: evolution. Change of a nucleotide: evolution. Deletion of DNA region: evolution. Duplication of a region: evolution. Selection against mutation carriers: evolution. Selection of antibiotic resistant micro-organism during permanent constraint: evolution. Changing gene frequencies in populations: evolution. And then they start to extrapolate. If this than also microbe to man: evolution. The fossil record: evolution.
If evolutionism was a science they would have discriminated between the two mechanisms. They don't since it is convenient to point at the one mechanism as proof for the other."Percy: 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.PB: Yep, and I already said that N+1 is easy to understand. Hemoglobin alpha chain has over 250 alleles. Histon 2a, 2b and 3 are non-allelic. Apparently the genes are not equally subject to mutations (=NRM). Since concerted evolution has been excluded recently, it shoul be purifying selection? Only if you introduce selection on neutral positions.Percy: 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.PB: I don't think we can speak of new information without somebody/something to read/understand the information.Best wishes,
Peter

Apparently, there is not a lot of constraint on the genetics to maintain the wisdomteeths in the MPG. It is obvious that they get easily lost, since you are not the only one. And, I do not think that there is a direct phylogenetic link between you and all the other people that lost the programs to develop wisdom teeths. Nothing evolved here. It is GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter

My apologies, I may have been more specific the first time I posted the information. Look on page 8, where you'll find this: There was quite a lot in your post to disagree with, but I think I'll choose to stay on topic and note that you failed to address the signal point, namely that the creation of new alleles through base subtitution mutations represents the creation of new information. If an old allele is information, then how is a new allele not information? If somebody/something can read/understand an old allele, then the same somebody/something can read/understand the new allele.--Percy

Percy,In response to:PB: I don't think we can speak of new information without somebody/something to read/understand the information.Percy: If an old allele is information, then how is a new allele not information? If somebody/something can read/understand an old allele, then the same somebody/something can read/understand the new allele.PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?Best wishes,
Peter

Percy,peter borger writes:Percy: Some of the hits are examples of base substitutions resulting in new phenotypes, such as this one about yeast:
UNIL - Erreur 404PB: Apparently you have better eyes than I have since I couldn't find the example. Please provide the title of the abstract, than I will look into it.My apologies, I may have been more specific the first time I posted the information. Look on page 8, where you'll find this:Quote:
"Based on classical genetics carried out in the sixties the M26 hotspot of recombination was studied. It is created by the single base substitution mutation ade6-M26. Changes in chromatin structure associated with the M26 hotspot were demonstrated.PB: In the sixties nobody knew how these sequences looked like. Now we find underlying recombinational hotspot. It is assumed random mutation. But they don't give proof for that. It is an assumption.Percy: There was quite a lot in your post to disagree with...PB: Of course. Wouldn't improve the discussion to agree with me...., but I think I'll choose to stay on topic and note that you failed to address the signal point, namely that the creation of new alleles through base subtitution mutations represents the creation of new information."Listen Percy, this is utter speculation. Evo's infer this from genetic (redundant) families. And it is a nice try since nobody can check it. However, there are protein families that defy this explanation. For instance, the alpha actinin genes (you have to introduce neutral selection) or the redunant gene family of 8 src-phosphatases. Members of the family can be knowcked out but point mutations are lethal This means that they cannot have arisen through duplication and variation. I made this point before, and it falsifies the evolutinary vision. If you like we can discuss the src family in detail.PB: I don't think we can speak of new information without somebody/something to read/understand the information.Percy: If an old allele is information, then how is a new allele not information? If somebody/something can read/understand an old allele, then the same somebody/something can read/understand the new allele.PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. That is a prerequisite for maintaining a gene in the genome in the evolutionary paradigm. Not in the GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-13-2003]

quote:

---

This is why those "impossibility of abiogenesis" claims are irrelevant - they are (at least ALL of the ones I have seen) based on 1-trial events. They neglect the fact that there would likely have been millions of such 'trials' every second.

​

Look at a lottery - buy one ticket, you have a pretty slim chance of winning. Buy 100 million and you will most likely possess a winning ticket.

​

Same idea with abiogenesis.

---

Evidently (at least so I've been told many times) abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

---

Of couse, it is relatively easy to find a genetic cause for a disease. But do diseases take away limbs? That is, anti-evolution?

​

Since the claimed 'requirement' for evolution, as described by creationists, is 'beneficial mutations' that do things like produce 'new body parts', why then do not detrimental mutations - genetic diseases - cause a substraction of body parts?

​

Take away the ability to appreciate music, etc.?

---

How about loss of hearing, sight, loss of limbs due to deadly viruses. Would that count?

quote:

---

So, please define for us YOUR use of "beneficial mutation.

---

Something that isnt neutral, doesn't cause genetic disease or other harm, something that would add an entirely new function superior to any other equivalent function.
I suppose that is what the creators of Spiderman, The Hulk, etc envisioned. And in comic book land, it works beautifully, but unfortunately not in this world.Does that suffice?Regards,
S------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233

You keep trying to divert attention from the original point. We weren't discussing whether or not the mutation is random (I know this is a hot topic for you, but that's not what we're talking about right now), but whether a base substitution mutation could cause a change in phenotype. It not only can, which was obvious in the first place, but it has been observed and published in the literature. As is the new allele - see the previously mentioned reference where the base substitution mutation in yeast is expressed as a change in chromatin structure. Since a base substitution change can cause a unique allele to arise, and since the allele can be expressed in the phenotype, and since allele's represent information, therefore base substitution mutations give rise to new information.--Percy

Hi Percy,peter borger writes:PB: In the sixties nobody knew how these sequences looked like. Now we find underlying recombinational hotspot. It is assumed random mutation. But they don't give proof for that. It is an assumption.Percy: You keep trying to divert attention from the original point. We weren't discussing whether or not the mutation is random (I know this is a hot topic for you, but that's not what we're talking about right now), but whether a base substitution mutation could cause a change in phenotype.PB: Another example would have been sufficient. Why not Thalasemia? Point mutation in a hemoglobin chain. However, I will spell out your refernce how the phenotype is affected. I bet it is accord with GUToB.Percy: It not only can, which was obvious in the first place, but it has been observed and published in the literature.PB: Okay, I see what you mean.Percy: If an old allele is information, then how is a new allele not information? If somebody/something can read/understand an old allele, then the same somebody/something can read/understand the new allele.PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated.Percy: As is the new allele - see the previously mentioned reference where the base substitution mutation in yeast is expressed as a change in chromatin structure. Since a base substitution change can cause a unique allele to arise, and since the allele can be expressed in the phenotype, and since allele's represent information, therefore base substitution mutations give rise to new information.PB: In accord with GUToB rule 3. I forgot about rule and prediction 3. When I read your mail, I was under the impression that you were referring to duplication, divergence and adaptation. It can be demonstrated to be wrong.Anyway, have a good one,Peter