Where is the evidence for evolution?

quote:

---

Mutation has the ability to add new information. Some common mutational mechanisms that produce new information are base substitutions, gene duplication, gene insertion, transposons, chromosome duplication, and a host of other copying errors. Even mutations that simply replace one nucleotide with another are examples of new information, because the new nucleotide sequence represents a new allele not previously present in the population (an allele is a type of a specific gene, such as the gene for eye color, one allele for blue, another for brown, etc)

​

Here's a simple example of the process of creating new information by substituting a single nucleotide. Let's consider a single gene, call it the X gene, in a population. This gene has only two alleles, call them A and B, and let's say these are the nucleotide sequences for the two alleles:

​

A: AAGCTTGTAACAA
B: CCGTCATTCGATC
During reproduction let's say a mutation occurs in one nucleotide of allele B, thereby producing new allele C, so now the population's gene pool has increased in size by one allele (note that C differs from B in only a single nucleotide):

​

A: AAGCTTGTAACAA
B: CCGTCATTCGATC
C: CCGTCACTCGATC
Does the new allele produce a difference in the organism's phenotype (phenotype means all characteristics of an organism, including morphological, chemical, psychological, etc)? Perhaps. And if it does, will it increase or decrease the organisms likelihood to survive to reproduce? That's what natural selection will decide.

​

Mutation is the source of new information, and natural selection is the pruning mechanism that decides which mutations pass on to the next generation.

​

--Percy

---

I want to back up to this point again. I believe it was SLPx who asked me to define "information", and I think it is appropriate to do so now. A simple illustration will do:Suppose I write a one page letter, I then ask the secretary to type the letter for me. She does (except she makes a few typographical errors). Now we have my original letter, and a near perfect copy of my letter. The copy is not new information, it is merely a duplicate of an original (and a worse one at that).Now, suppose I write a one page letter and ask a friend to write a one page letter (on any topic). We would then have two entirely different letters, representing new information.In the first scenario we ended up with two letters of the same information (except lets say one point in my letter was to "purchase 10 litres of milk" and the secretary typed "purchase 1000 litres of milk"...that would have serious consequences if I only had money for 10).In the second scenario I write a letter about dogs, and my friend writes about the space shuttle. Two entirely different unrelated things.Percy, your example would be more accurate to say that you now had three alleles, A, B, and B(2) ie. a less than perfect copy of the original B. So it's NOT new information, but rather a copy of the pre-existing information.Just as there are over 300 alleles of the hemoglobin gene, but all those alleles only produce hemoglobin.Mutations produce only alleles, which means that they can only produce variation within pre-existing created kinds, and not change from one kind to another.SLPx, what if one of your students handed in a 26 page paper, but upon reading it you discovered that each page was exactly the same. The student merely copied the first page 25 times (probably made some typo's if he/she re-typed each page).
Would you call that NEW information?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

Equivocation alert!How about we look at the nylon bug example. One additional nucleotide converts a glucose metabolising gene into a nylon metabolising gene. Is this the same amount of information, a loss of information (creationists typically bleat that any mutation is a loss of information) or an increase in information?So, give us your definition of genetic information and apply it to the above case.

It doesn't matter what labels you place on the alleles. They're only names. A rose by any other name, etc.Your premise is that the genome represents information, and further that information can not be created by random processes, and that therefore mutation cannot create anything new. But we've provided you descriptions of how the simple process of copying error causes this very thing to happen, and given you examples (yeast, see page 8; nylon bug from wj) of this very thing happening with actual biological organisms. You can argue till the cows come home that information theory says this is impossible, but with the impossible object sitting disdainfully in front of you, who's going to listen to you? And by the way, information theory doesn't say this is impossible. Read Shannon's original paper some time, it's very accessible (http://cm.bell-labs.com/...s/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf).Your letter example is a good one. You mentioned milk as being mentioned in your letter, so let's say that your letter includes a recipe for sausage soup. Your secretary makes ten copies of your letter, but makes many mistakes, and you cook up ten batches of sausage soup following the recipes in the ten different letters. A battery of gourmets samples the batches of soup and chooses one as best. You take the letter for that batch of soup and have your secretary make ten more copies, and you again brew a batch of soup from the recipe in each letter. The gourmets again sample and select. Repeat this process ad infinitum, and after a while you'll have some pretty fantastic sausage soup, or some pretty fantastic something that the gourmets really like, since the process of change is random. Hopefully the secretary never substitutes the word "cyanide" for "salt" or your panel of judges will be kaput.Now let's view your argument in terms of soup. Your claim is that each nearly but not quite correct copy of the letter is not new information. But your new soup recipe is better than your old. You now have two different recipes. Does the old recipe represent information, while the new one does not?Using your misunderstanding of information theory you can use whatever words you like to describe the soup evolution process, but at the end of the day the process still happened, and making claims that information theory says it can't happen will not change that.--Percy

If he's relying on Gitt's "theory" that would explain things. However he hasn't answered the question of whether the genome contains Gitt's idea of information (which - unlike Shannon's DOES include meaning).Unless the genome can be shown to contain information in Gitt's sense (and it seems that it doesn't) then Gitts ideas are irrelevant to evolution

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

Zephan writes:

quote:

---

Where is the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution?

---

A good way to think about this is to ask a similar question:Where is the line of demarcation between someone speaking an archaeic form of a language and a modern version?In other words..."Who spoke French for the first time?" is a silly question, because it is obvious that languages change over time as a result of many people using the words of that language differently. Some words are dropped, some are changed, and others are completely new, novel words.Biological evolution happens in a very similar way.

You people are the ones saying that abiogenesis and evolution are different.I guess with no line of demarcation, they are the same. My point was to help you see the issue clearer since you failed to provide peer reviewed literature to back up your unsupported beliefs.Meanwhile, archaic languages are the foundations for the study of linguistics, and the theories for how languages developed to their present state.Which unwittingly proves my point about abiogenesis being an imperative of evolution.

quote:

---

Which unwittingly proves my point about abiogenesis being an imperative of evolution.

---

But it isn't. Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis. It only requires that something started the process. That something can be anything. That is the rub. That is why people consider evolution and abiogenesis to be different topics. Creationism itself is proof of this point. Creationists-- modern progressive creationists -- generally accept some form of evolution but NOT ABIOGENESIS, opting for the creation of distinct kinds or divine manipulation of DNA or some such.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Zephan,There have been a number of posts here, some lengthy, trying to clarify for you why abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing. I'm going to explain this once again, but if you still don't accept it it would be very helpful if you could explain why by responding more specifically. To this point your responses have been of the general sort, in essence saying, "I still don't accept your explanation," but providing little reason why. Well, let's follow your line of logic using my earlier explanation where I said, "When does a boy become a man? Where do the mountains meet the plain?" According to you, since there is no line of demarcation, a boy is a man and a mountain is a plain. Since that makes no sense, your logic must be invalid.As has already been explained, it is thought that life developed from non-life by a long series of small graduated steps. At what step during that process non-life became life will be as impossible to say as when mountains become plains. One wouldn't normally find peer-reviewed papers about basic definitions. Normally dictionaries aren't too helpful in the definition of scientific terms, so understand that what follows are only approximate definitions, but they're sufficient in this case to indicate for you that abiogenesis and evolution are different things. This is the abiogenesis definition from the Merriam-Webster website (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?abiogenesis): And this is the appropriate definition of evolution for biology (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?evolution): Moving on to your last point: This is absolutely true for the evolutionists here, but not for some categories of Creationists. Some Creationists believe God created the first life, and that evolution took over from there. So you see, abiogenesis is *not* an imperative for all perspectives.--Percy

Pretty pathetic rejoinder, Zeph...

Zephan,

quote:

---

You people are the ones saying that abiogenesis and evolution are different.

​

....Which unwittingly proves my point about abiogenesis being an imperative of evolution.

---

How does abiogenesis become the logical imperative of evolution when evolution is also consistent with ID & eternal life? Obvious answer? It isn't.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Page,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.PB: Unused is info without selective constraint. You know what happens to that, isn't it? I start to belief that evo's themselves do not understand the ToE.SLP: 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]SLP: 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.PB: Even if I give examples you are unable to discuss them scientifically, is it?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Through editing, reverse transcription and reinsertion into the genome. It already has been described for some trypanosomes. Why not for other MPGs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------SLP: Because real mechanisms of what amounts to recombination doe snot an MPG make.PB: And you also demonstrate that the MPG may have lost the info. Loss of info is often applied in the ToE, so why not in the GUToB?SLP: 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.PB: I read it. What's your point?best wishes,
Peter

The example was just trying to illustrate that a change
in a trait is not, of itself, beneficial or otherwise.It all depends on the context/environment that that change
finds itself in.

What exactly do YOU mean when you say 'evolved'?

Yes. I know that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com