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:   Evolving New Information
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 458 (509542)
05-22-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by NosyNed
05-22-2009 9:59 AM


Re: It's an Example
Nosy writes:
Yes, he does, Lucy.
Percy can speak for him/her self.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2009 9:59 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 458 (509544)
05-22-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by NosyNed
05-22-2009 9:59 AM


Re: It's an Example
Nosy writes:
Yes, he does, Lucy. This is a hypothetical example. If you haven't got that much yet then you should go back and read everything v e r y s l o w l y.
How much more do I have to consider these things?
Edited by LucyTheApe, : s

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2009 9:59 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 48 of 458 (509573)
05-22-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
05-22-2009 10:05 AM


Re: gca
Please correct the typo in the gene sequences or things will get more confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 10:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 49 of 458 (509577)
05-22-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by slevesque
05-22-2009 1:27 AM


slevesque writes:
I mean, they talk for about 10-15 pages about the happening of life in ancient-earth oceans, then about how bacterias evolved into fish, to ampibians, etc. from dinosaurs to birds, from australopithecus to humans, etc.
Let's just take a step back and look at the big picture. Let's take a look at humans and chimps.
Are the differences between humans and chimps due to a difference in DNA? Yep, they sure are. Already we can show that changing DNA does not result in a non-functional organism, and can result in well adapted species too boot.
When looking at the chimp and human genome, how much of a difference is there? Depends on the comparison. Of the DNA stretches that humans and chimps share the sequence is about 98% identical. That is, out of every 50 bases there is one point mutation. But what about the whole genome? Overtime genomes can gain and lose DNA also known as insertions and deletions (indels for short). When these are part of the comparison there is an overall similarity of 95%.
So the question that must be posed to those critical of evolution is this. Of the differences between humans and chimps, which CAN NOT be produced by the observed mechanisms of mutation? I know of none. For me, these simple premises lead to an unavoidable conclusion. There is nothing stopping evolution from evolving humans and chimps from a common ancestor.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 1:27 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 3:18 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 3:52 AM Taq has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 50 of 458 (509580)
05-22-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taq
05-22-2009 2:59 PM


This is similar to my point in Mesage #28.
I think I'll expand on it.
Stevesque, knowing what we do about mutations, we can say with absolute certainty that there is a sequence of mutations from a fish to a newt, or from a reptile to a bird, or from a monkey to a human --- or, for that matter, from a butterfly to an elephant, although that last one hasn't happened.
This is trivially true: it is true in the same way that it is true that by adding, subtracting, and changing enough words one could change A Tale Of Two Cities into Moby Dick.
So when considering a proposed evolutionary transition, there are only two questions we need to ask:
(1) The theoretical question: could there be a sequence of intermediate forms between the start and end of the proposed transition such that each new form is favored or at least tolerated by natural selection? For while the nature of mutations places no restrictions on what can happen, the law of natural selection does.
(2) The evidential question: does the evidence we have confirm or contradict the proposition that the proposed transition did in fact take place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 2:59 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Son, posted 05-22-2009 4:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 51 of 458 (509592)
05-22-2009 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2009 3:18 PM


I like this explanation, can I quote it for future reference? It will avoid creationists muddling the issue with their "information theory".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 3:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 5:28 PM Son has not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 6:58 PM Son has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 52 of 458 (509596)
05-22-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Son
05-22-2009 4:45 PM


Son writes:
I like this explanation, can I quote it for future reference? It will avoid creationists muddling the issue with their "information theory".
Quite right. The "muddling" occurs when their model runs into reality. As Dr. Adequate says above:
quote:
A look through the reviews of it suggests that he has a theoretical argument that what we observe can't happen and what we never observe must. It reminds me of the (apocryphal) story of the scientists who claimed to have proved that bees can't fly.
When a model claims that something is impossible, and that impossible thing is observed to happen, then we should chuck the model.
When creationists claim that no new information can be produced through mutation then there are only two options:
1. All life contains the same amount of information.
2. The creationist model is wrong.
This is made plain by the fact that different morphologies are produced through changes in DNA. The question is how those changes got there, as it pertains to the Evo v. Creo debate. The problem with the creationist model is quite obvious. It lacks a pragmatic explanation of the facts.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Son, posted 05-22-2009 4:45 PM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by pandion, posted 05-22-2009 6:23 PM Taq has replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 53 of 458 (509603)
05-22-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
05-22-2009 5:28 PM


When creationists claim that a mutation can only destroy information and never create it, they are citing the standard communication theory definition of information. It, of course, has to do with the transmission of a message. In this case, the message contains all of the information that is to be transmitted. If in the process of transmission the message is corrupted, then there has been a decrease in information. It is true that in this case a change cannot add information. So creationists, without any understanding of information theory or biology, claim that no new information can be added.
However, genetics and the genome of a replicating population is not a matter of sending messages between two parties. You see, some additional information has been added to the theory to use it in discussing genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 5:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 6:32 PM pandion has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 54 of 458 (509604)
05-22-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by pandion
05-22-2009 6:23 PM


pandion writes:
However, genetics and the genome of a replicating population is not a matter of sending messages between two parties. You see, some additional information has been added to the theory to use it in discussing genetics.
A good example of that is Tom Schneider's program EV which treats a DNA binding protein and a DNA binding site as the reciever and transmitter.
Link
Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, Vol. 28, No. 14 2794-2799
Evolution of biological information
Thomas D. Schneider*
Abstract:
How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by pandion, posted 05-22-2009 6:23 PM pandion has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 458 (509606)
05-22-2009 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Son
05-22-2009 4:45 PM


I like this explanation, can I quote it for future reference? It will avoid creationists muddling the issue with their "information theory".
I wrote it up for the SkepticWiki here --- you may find the other arguments handy as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Son, posted 05-22-2009 4:45 PM Son has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 458 (509635)
05-23-2009 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2009 2:02 AM


Maybe I was unclear: I am advocating that these two concepts SHOULD be more distinguished in evolutionary literature. I'm not saying they are not, but I'm saying it is not uncommon to have an example of natural selection in action to justify the possibility of dinosaur to birds.
We are saying exactly the same thing here.
A look through the reviews of it suggests that he has a theoretical argument that what we observe can't happen and what we never observe must. It reminds me of the (apocryphal) story of the scientists who claimed to have proved that bees can't fly.
It also appears to be standard creationist rubbish, although maybe I'm doing him a disservice --- maybe they got it from him.
I don't know which review you read, but his argumentation is not solely theoretical. it is based on population genetics, and on the cost of selection. It is nothing I have ever encountered in creationist litterature.
What he advances is this: mutations are accumulating in the genome, reducing slowly, but steadily, the overall fitness of the population. The vast majority of mutations are deletirious, with again most of them being near-neutral, and so are in Kimura's 'no selection zone' in his graphic of mutation distributions. It has no relevance with 'what we are seeing can't happen', he is right on par with the population geneticists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 2:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 4:38 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 57 of 458 (509636)
05-23-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
05-22-2009 7:12 AM


So your biology book provides the example of finches evolving into horses? Interesting. I suggest you use it for heating purposes the next cold winter.
Now this is entirely reasonable, so maybe you shouldn't burn your biology book after all. A finch evolving into a horse is not the same as what you say here. Birds aren't even mammals.
Thanks for the assurances, but you just revealed that you think a finch evolving into a horse is a valid example of evolution, so the evidence would suggest that despite your voluminous reading you lack the understanding of biology necessary for assessing the validity of what you read. About Sanford Wikipedia says:
Technically, what prevents mutations+natural selection to have birds become mammals in the theory of evolution? Nothing of course. I wan't saying it happened in the past, I was saying that according to evolution, it could happen in the future.
Now if you are saying otherwise (which I don't think you are, BTW), then you'll have to say why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 05-23-2009 6:10 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 458 (509637)
05-23-2009 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taq
05-22-2009 2:59 PM


When looking at the chimp and human genome, how much of a difference is there? Depends on the comparison. Of the DNA stretches that humans and chimps share the sequence is about 98% identical. That is, out of every 50 bases there is one point mutation. But what about the whole genome? Overtime genomes can gain and lose DNA also known as insertions and deletions (indels for short). When these are part of the comparison there is an overall similarity of 95%.
So the question that must be posed to those critical of evolution is this. Of the differences between humans and chimps, which CAN NOT be produced by the observed mechanisms of mutation? I know of none. For me, these simple premises lead to an unavoidable conclusion. There is nothing stopping evolution from evolving humans and chimps from a common ancestor.
I'll ask you another question, similar to yours. Of the differences between humans and chimps, whichow can it be produced by the observed mechanisms of mutation in the span of 6 million years ?
Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides, representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations. So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (the other 20 million being in the chimp lineage). This means you have to fix over 3 mutations per year in the population (considering the divergence 6 millions years ago). Even considering generations of 1 year, this is, at best, unrealistic. (human generations are currently 20 years)
Haldane had calculated in 1957, that it takes, on average, 300 generations to select a single mutation to fixation in a population. Although I agree there has been revisions of his calculations in the past fifty years, there are no actual numbers that come even close to the fixation rates needed. All the fixations not done by selection have to be done by genetic drift, which is way slower then selection.
So to answer your question, even if we assume that mutations can create the different information between chimps and humans, even the evolutionnary time scale is not long enough to allow for such massive changes, unless you assume impossible fixation rates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 2:59 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Son, posted 05-23-2009 4:19 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 4:54 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 05-26-2009 6:37 PM slevesque has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 59 of 458 (509639)
05-23-2009 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
05-23-2009 3:52 AM


I would like to know where you got your information on the time it takes for a mutation to fix in a population. Shouldn't it be dependant on the size of the population?
The number calculed this way isn't very useful if you don't know how many mutations occur at the same time. For example, during the 300 generations the mutation fix itself into the population, many others mutation must be occuring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 3:52 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 458 (509643)
05-23-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by slevesque
05-23-2009 3:09 AM


I don't know which review you read, but his argumentation is not solely theoretical. it is based on population genetics, and on the cost of selection.
What he advances is this: mutations are accumulating in the genome, reducing slowly, but steadily, the overall fitness of the population. The vast majority of mutations are deletirious, with again most of them being near-neutral, and so are in Kimura's 'no selection zone' in his graphic of mutation distributions. It has no relevance with 'what we are seeing can't happen', he is right on par with the population geneticists.
Except that the population geneticists think that he's talking rubbish.
Now, I understood his argument. He predicts that species must be "doomed" by the accumulation of genes which are not harmful enough to be rooted out by natural selection, but which cumulatively will cause a species to degenerate so much that it goes extinct. Theoretically, this seems puerile to me, but let's leave aside theory and look at practice.
Consider E. coli. Consider that even if we accepted the minimum YEC age for the Earth, the bacterium E. coli has reproduced through generations in the order of billions. Consider further that as this is a bacterium, it is faced with "Muller's ratchet", which makes it harder for natural selection to eliminate harmful mutations than in "higher" organisms.
Has it gone extinct? No. But we do see that faced with novel environmental challenges, it evolves rapidly to meet them. What he predicts must happen hasn't; what he says can't happen we can see happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 3:09 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 4:53 AM Dr Adequate 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