Where is the evidence for evolution?

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."

quote:

---

PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?

---

Why wouldn't it be? Unused information is still information.If not, then GUToB better come up with a system whereby huge amounts of information can be generated ex nihilo in a living organsism.

quote:

---

Sonnike:

​

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

---

It doesn't. I mention abiogenesis in reference to the calculations of its 'improbability' and the chances assigned to it. I hope this clarifies it for you.

quote:

---

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?

---

What 'deadly virus' did you have in mind?
If it was a 'deadly' virus, wouldn't the victim be... dead?This is, of course, an attempt at diversion. Please address the substantive issues substantively instead of trying to go off on irrelevant tangents, or do not address anything at all.

quote:

---

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?

---

In com9ic book land, yes.In real life, no.As is so often the case, creationists make unrealistic demands via personal definitions.Why an "entirely new" function?Would not a function that works better also be caused by mutation?Keep in mind of course that "mutation" involves more than single point mutations, which are what creationists usually like to argue about.So, in the end, no, Son, your 'definition' does not suffice.

quote:

---

Zephan:
Meanwhile, SLPx's lottery example is as spurious an analogy one will ever come across. Comparing the mutations of populations with the non-populations of abiogenesis which have no mutations doesn't work.

---

And thus appears the sophistic bilge of the creationist.I see the intent of my "analogy" shot skyward across your head, as well.
Of course, according to creationist electrical engineer and self-proclaimed information theoryu expert - who also boasts of having had 'advanced math' in college Fred Williams, as you exceed the odds, your chances become essentially 100%, and you have no chance until then. So, if the chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million, according to Fred, the person buying the 100,000,001st ticket will be the winner.Where were you when he offered this 'explanation'?

quote:

---

Even so, the alleged result of abiogenesis is a single self-reproducing organism yet to be defined (it has been said that later on it will turn into a fish, then a reptile, a mammal, a dinosaur, a bird, a banana, then a human).

---

"Turn into"? More sophistic gibberish. Too many creationist websites, I imagine.

quote:

---

As such, there wouldn't be "millions of chances" each second on this one organism which randomly created itself from a molten rock;

---

And here it is - MISREPRESENTATION!
Please point out where I mentioned "this one organism". And why do you keep mentioniung "molten rock"? Does misrepresenting reality nmake your comic book beliefs more palatable to the uninformed, perhaps (most likely) including yourself? It would appear so...

quote:

---

rather, the probability of evolutionary success would be defined in part by its reproductive cycle, which no one is saying occurs millions of times a second.

---

That is right, and it is not what I said either.

quote:

---

Getting back to abiogenesis:

​

Where is the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution?

​

Consider that 100 million chances a second for [precicely what to occur?]the infinite probability of abiogenesis even occurring is still a goose egg.

---

So you say. Please provide the requisite peer reviewed publications supportive of your mere assertion.

quote:

---

Perhaps "millions of chances each second" (er, reference here please? or are we to assume this is a closely held non-scientific belief like the creationist?)

---

I have no ref - I assumed it. I am not so foolish as to presume that there was only one organism. Indeed, prior to 'life', there would have been no organisms at all, as I should have hoped would beself evident.In order for "abiogenesis" to occur, - wait, what is your definition of abiogenesis?Do you subscribe to the stupid "complete funbctioning cell sprining from nothing" version propogated by imbeciles from such scholarly institues as ICR? Or do you subscribe to a more rational model?

quote:

---

Anyway, add that we don't have millions of seconds to work with since abiogenesis was apparently the most opportunistic of all events in the universe; re: without undue delay, taking advantage of the very earliest time possible to create itself from a rapidly cooling molten rock. In short, abiogenesis didn't have very much time to be such a huge success.

---

Relevance of assertions and opinions? None.

quote:

---

Most important, the bastard child of abiogenesis couldn't survive anyway, much less reproduce itself to create a population.

---

If you say so. I guess you must have ultimate knowledge. Must be nice.

quote:

---

It is indeed a Thorn in the Side for the evolutionist.

---

Not really. Because no matter how creationists try to shoehorn disparate theories, they do not succeed.Also I suggest that you actually read my post:http://EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution? -->EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution?your rant does not indicate that you did.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]

quote:

---

Sonnike:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't. I mention abiogenesis in reference to the calculations of its 'improbability' and the chances assigned to it. I hope this clarifies it for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Zephan dealt with this impossible event(life from non-life) in an earlier post.

---

He did so exceedingly poorly.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would not a function that works better also be caused by mutation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Okay, so that must be your definition. Now then, will you give me several examples of this kind of mutation?

---

Sure:
Are Mutations Harmful?Now, will you provide citations by Gitt in the peer-reviewed literature in which one can see for themselves his "expertise" in biological information and how it is he is recognized as a 'world's leading information scientist'?Or have you decided (smartly) to concede that argument?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]

quote:

---

PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Dr.Page: Why wouldn't it be? Unused information is still information.

​

If not, then GUToB better come up with a system whereby huge amounts of information can be generated ex nihilo in a living organsism.

---

PB: It can be imagened that preexisting mechanism are operative to generate new genes.[/quote] It can also be imagined that monkeys flying out of your arse make mutations happen, but imagining something does not make it real. Like creatons, for example.

quote:

---

Through editing, reverse transcription and reinsertion into the genome. It already has been described for some trypanosomes. Why not for other MPGs?

---

Because real mechanisms of what amounts to recombination doe snot an MPG make.I suggest you start anew in your quest, and start by reading for once the original Venter et al. Human Genome article in Science a couple of years ago.

It is interesting - I just started the section on protein synthesis in my BI 101 class. We start by talking about DNA and genes.The first thing I do is explain it using the 'language analogy' - letters, words, sentences...Then I explain that this analogy breaks down and is useless above this very simplistic level..Unfortunately, gene action is in fact not at all like typos in a letter.Nor is gene duplication just like typing a sentence twice.Unless the creationists learn and finally acknowledge this, these silly 'analogies' will be their bread and butter, and those that know better will continue to be frustrated and annoyed, and, of course, we will realize that the creationist information hawks base their ideas on ignorance.But it isn't just lay creatyionists like sonnike - it is highly educated (or seemingly so) creationists that make the same errors.There is a chap that is apparently some sort of computer scientist that insists that information cannot increase - he posted here for a short time as "CROsoft". I have cited for him several scientific papers indicating that his notions are without merit, for one, and that as I have indicated here, evolution does not, in fact "require" "new information" to proceed.The argument is a red herring. But CROsoft and other information hawks will have none of it.This impresses the lay folk, and apparently it gives them a sense of accomplishment.Although I am unsure how denying facts can give anyone this sense.Anyway, keep trying, Son.------------------
"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

Pretty pathetic rejoinder, Zeph...

quote:

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:The first thing I do is explain it using the 'language analogy' - letters, words, sentences...
Then I explain that this analogy breaks down and is useless above this very simplistic level..

​

Unfortunately, gene action is in fact not at all like typos in a letter.

​

Nor is gene duplication just like typing a sentence twice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Son:
Would you mind explaining the what's and how's of gene action/duplication?

---

Sure. Keep in mind that this will be brief and will not be a universal explanation. That is, there are lots of exceptions, etc.A gene product - a protein - does something. It can be used structurally, such as collagen or tubulin, or can be 'functional', as some say, like an enzyme or a hormone.There are several ways that organisms control the amount of each gene product being expressed. For instance, we do not need or want huge amounts of growth hormone being produced all the time. There are feedback mechanisms, where, for example, the gene product itself or some metabolic byproduct either enhances or slows down further production.
There are ways to turn genes off permanently, such as those used during embryonic development. There are ways to turn genes off temporarily, and so on.Increasing the amount of gene product is not just like reading a sentence twice, at least not in most cases. There are interactions between proteins and other molecules, many of which are concentration dependant. Small amounts of protein X are fine, but double it and all sorts of new interactions occur.For example, I have posted here on more than one occasion (I think) a citation for a paper in which some experimentation had been done in mice on their HOX 11 gene, which is involved in development. Introducing mutations in the gene caused, as one might expect, deformities in the mouse pups. However, when the invesigators added a second, non-mutated copy of the gene, not only were the defects 'corrected', but phenotypic changes were introduced. If I recall, these included some extra vertebrae and longer limbs.
In this example alone, we see a demonstration of the fallacy of the language analogy. Writing a sentence twice will not change its meaning, at best just the emphasis (as has 'explained' to me by a creationist "information hawk"). However, duplicating a gene can definitely have significant phenotypic effects.I'm sure Gitt or Spetner must have explained this in their books.------------------
"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

Typical...Did you understand what I did write?Or were you just looking for 'questions that the evo can't answer' to hang your hat on?

quote:

---

I'm not participating in the discussion, so I reserve my right to moderate this thread. I'm only posting a clarification since my name was mentioned.

quote:

---

Sonnikke writes:
In conclusion, I think that the language analogy seems still relevant (as apparantly did Percy), and it also appears that mutations causing alleles are either harmful or neutral.

---

​

I love the language analogy because of its explanatory power, but no analogy is perfect, and this one is no exception, as Scott and PaulK point out. The only perfect analogy to something is the thing itself. All other things produce imperfect analogies and break down at some point.

​

Analogies are used not because they are proof or evidence, but because they help explain by putting a difficult concept into a familiar context. A common mistake that you see made here at EvC Forum is for something to be explained using an analogy, and then for the analogy to be attacked, as if breaking the analogy has any effect on the concept itself. That's not to say that false analogies can't be drawn, but even when that mistake is made it only means a mistake has been made in explication and doesn't mean the underlying concept is wrong. It certainly doesn't say it is right, either, but I just thought it was important to point out that I've seen a lot of false conclusions being drawn in discussions where analogies are used.

---

Indeed, as I explicitly stated, I use the language analogy to get the basic points across, but I also explain that above that level, the language analogy breaks down.Unfortunately, many creationists - including those that should know better, such as the "information" hawks - either fail to grasp the limitations of the analogy or ignore tham and use it for propagandistic purposes.I know this occurs - for I have explained the shortcomings of the analogy for, for example, gene duplication, and later seen the same creationist continue to use the language analogy to proclaim gene duplication damaging to evolution.

quote:

---

I haven't been discussing the analogy, just commenting on Gitt and his "information theory". For some reason nobody wants to explain why Gitt's ideas are relevant to DNA - could it be that everyone already knows that they are not ?

---

Well, Sonnike dropped his argument from Gitt's "authority", so maybe it has sunk in.

quote:

---

Sonnike:
Would you mind elaborating on these "exceptions"?

---

Yes, I would mind. I was being cautious and tentative when I wrote that. I do not know of any offhand, then, I have not looked into that aspect of duplication. I would say that an example could be Down's syndrome, though that is a bit different than 'mere' gene duplication.However, since the example I gave referred to developmental genes, I think that it holds more import in this discussion (gene dup. as a mechanism of evolution while not necessarily adding information thereby refuting the "evolution requires new information" argument).

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are several ways that organisms control the amount of each gene product being expressed. For instance, we do not need or want huge amounts of growth hormone being produced all the time. There are feedback mechanisms, where, for example, the gene product itself or some metabolic byproduct either enhances or slows down further production.
There are ways to turn genes off permanently, such as those used during embryonic development. There are ways to turn genes off temporarily, and so on.

---

​

How does evolutionary thinking explain such control mechanisms?, ie. how they evolved.

---

I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.

quote:

---

Increasing the amount of gene product is not just like reading a sentence twice, at least not in most cases. There are interactions between proteins and other molecules, many of which are concentration dependant. Small amounts of protein X are fine, but double it and all sorts of new interactions occur.

---

In what cases is it like reading a sentence twice?[/quote] Why would that matter?

quote:

---

Can you post a link again to this mice experiment. In a search I found that the limbs got shorter but not longer.

---

No. I have citd on this forum a few times and I do not feel like finding it again.------------------
Signature too long, 200 chars max.

quote:

---

sonnike:
I am simply acting like a curious student who asks many questions of his professor in trying to get a grasp of the whole picture being presented. Is questioning disallowed?

---

Not at all. But it seemed to me, as Percy rightly explained and I alluded to, that the questions were intended not to learn more, but to find ammunition.On another forum, a creationist was aghast that I did not agree with his sentiment that there was nothing wrong with asking questions in class designed to make the professor look stupid (yes, those were his words - 'to make the prof look stupid.').Can you see why I would not agree with that sentiment, and why I find litle reason to 'respect' someone that does?

quote:

---

Percy:
The last time Scott and I exchanged email I think he said something like, "You @#$%&*@%, how dare you suspend me, I'm never visiting your two-bit board again." (Sorry, Scott, couldn't resist )

---

I thought I sent that to moose?
Well, I was angry, for it seemed that I was getting made an example of.
Though I do not think I used the phras "two-bit"....

quote:

---

No, Scott and I are not communicating, I'm just reading what he wrote for everyone to see, including you, in Message 203: "Did you understand what I did write?" That's why I said Scott has no idea whether you understood his explanation, because he said so openly, not because we're secretly plotting against you. As Admin I'm neutral on the issues, but highly biased against obfuscated discussion. Only in that sense am I taking sides.

---

Indeed. I hate to keep bringing up other boards, but in my experiences elsewhere, I have found nice examples of many of the things that get brought up here.There is a poster named "bertvan." She is active of the ARN forum now, and used to be very active on the old, old incarnation of the Internet Infidels board several years ago. She was probably the most frustrating creationist I have encountered. These were the days when I would take sometimes hours to dig up refs and write lengthy posts to support my points. Bertvan would ask some question (or more usually, a series of questions), I (and others) would take the time to address each of them in detail, and she would blow off 99% of your post, and just focus on some minor trivial point, or ask more questions on just one of the many responses, then refuse to even entertain the other informaiton provided to her. (She still does this - she is now a proponant of EAM, which is similar in a way to GUToB except without the imaginary particles. One of the basic tenets of EAM is directed mutations. Back when I posted on ARN, I provided with a list of citations similar to the one I provided Borger on how these mutations do not occur. She ignored it. she has recently been presented with similar lists on many occasions. She drops the thread, only to bring up the same issue later...).Sonnike is not yet to that stage, but he is getting there.We are getting along much better, but it is difficult to keep it up when the opponent refuses to discuss the issues they bring up...