Evolving New Information

No-one does use the former to prove the latter. Descent with modification is the explanation of how the latter occurred. The proof that it occurred would lie in the fossil record, comparative morphology, embryology, molecular phylogeny, et cetera ...

Well, in that case, I would point out that we know of mutations that fuse and split chromosomes, that insert and delete bases, and that change any base to any other base. We know of some other sorts of mutations too, but these alone are sufficient to convert any eukaryote genome to any other eukaryote genome.Hence, descent with modification is indeed sufficient to achieve the results you specify.

Those are examples of natural selection in action.They are not the proofs of: Please try to distinguish between these two concepts. You have that almost exactly the wrong way round. 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.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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?

I wrote it up for the SkepticWiki here --- you may find the other arguments handy as well.

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.

But this is not true. I did the math: My argument from mathematics and facts trumps your argument from incredulity. The math, by the way, is standard population genetics, I disclaim all originality.To see that your incredulity is unjustified, consider (a) the mutation rate in humans and (b) the rather lovely mathematical result that the rate of substitution per site per generation in the entire gene pool is equal to the rate of mutation per nucleotide per generation in the individual.---To quote the Genetics Society of America: Hmm ... I wonder what they know about population genetics that you don't?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's a good way to wish away inconvenient results. Anything which breeds fast enough to definitively prove you wrong is deemed not to suffer from these magical mutations which cause extinction but aren't selected against. And anything that doesn't, has them ... even though you have no empirical evidence to support this claim.Since you claim that the dividing line is between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, how do you feel about ... yeast? That's eukaryotic. What's the excuse this time? (1) The singular of species is species. "Specie" means currency.(2) What criteria are you using to identify bacterial species?One key criterion used for identifying E. coli is its inability to feed on citrate ... the very ability that was produced in Lenski's long-term evolution experiment: Lenski's first paper on the subject can be found here.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What was it? Ah, backpedalling. Er ... what? This doesn't appear to mean anything. "Quasi-inexistent due to low noise"?And what do your statements about bacteria have to do with yeast, which is a eukaryote?And what evidence do you have for anything you're saying? But it has changed in such a manner. A defining characteristic of the species has been altered. Anyone who had found something that behaver like Lenski's bacteria in the wild who checked to see if they were E. coli would have found that they weren't and would have announced the discovery of a new bacterial species.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't think that your false statements are confusing anyone but yourself.

Yes. Something that looked kind of horsey, but was descended from birds, would not be a horse, any more than a dolphin is a shark. From a cladistic standpoint, what you're talking about is impossible simply by definition. It is certainly not what onifre was telling you.But you have more interesting things to be wrong about; I suggest that we focus on those.

Then I await its relevance with keen interest. "Noise"? If you propose that in eukaryotes deleterious mutations have no effect on the phenotype, I should be fascinated to know in what sense they are deleterious. You might want to look up the term: "Muller's ratchet".It is, by definition, a mechanism which causes the accumulation of deleterious mutations in asexually reproducing organisms. Such as bacteria. Again, you should define "noise", look up Muller's ratchet, and try to provide a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of evidence for anything you're saying. And presumably would also "slow down" these hypothetical mutations which cause extinction but are invisible to natural selection.P.S: YEAST IS A EUKARYOTE. I may have mentioned it once or twice. If your excuse depends on the genetic differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, then it does not apply to yeast. Not at all funny. As with Lenski's experiment, they knew that they were looking at E. coli. And they adapted to these conditions. Rather than, for example, going extinct. Biology: 1; Creationist gibberish: 0. Of course. All adaptations come at a cost. Evolution strikes again! Apart from not having one of the defining characteristics of E. coli.Just like, "all in all", humans are still monkeys.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You mean genetic drift? And you're claiming that bacteria are immune to this? Really?On what basis, other than that you really want it to be true?How are bacteria immune to "nutrition, chance, etc"?Surely nutrition, for example, must affect bacteria in some way. In that they die if they don't get adequate nutrition. So you mean: "low heritability of the characters affected by the genes under discussion". Fair enough --- you may introduce what terms you like so long as you define them. I still can't see where you're going with this, though. That would be Kimura the founder of neutralism and the author of The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, yes? Can you quote him as saying that there are no neutral mutations? (Hint: no.) Can you quote him as saying that all near-neutral mutations are harmful? (Hint: no.) Can you quote him as saying: (Hint: yes.)Can you quote him as saying: (Hint: yes.)It's possible that he understands the implications of his work better than you do. If that is Muller talking about Muller's ratchet, then he is, by definition of Muller's ratchet, talking about organisms that reproduce asexually. Such as bacteria.Incidentally, that's H. J. Muller, yes? The guy who described The Origin Of Species as "the greatest book ever written"? So now not only do these extinction-causing mutations have very little effect, but they don't always have all or any of the very little effect that they have. But they can still make a species go extinct. Do you have any evidence for this claim?Are you aware that Muller, whom you just quoted with apparent approval, completely disagrees with you? Once more, I urge you to look up the phrase "Muller's ratchet" and find out what it actually means. Descent with modification is all evolution. It's the definition of evolution.What Lenski's experiment, and countless others, demonstrate, is that we see evolution in which natural selection causes the fixation of adaptive mutations. We see this all the time. We do not see species going extinct as a result of mutations so subtle in their effects as to be invisible to natural selection. Ever.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what you think that means, but I'm fairly sure that you're wrong. What do you mean by "Kimura's mutation distribution graphic"? Is it one of the figures in The Neutral Theory Of Molecular Evolution (yes, that's The Neutral Theory Of Molecular Evolution) and if so, which one? If you will tell me which figure, I shall tell you what it means.And I am absolutely certain that Kimura, the founder of neutralism, did not deny the existence of neutral mutations. Again, I don't see what you're driving at. I said that the concept of Muller's ratchet only applies to asexually reproducing organisms, such as bacteria, in which I am, of course, right.Your reply that its existence in bacteria is not questioned does not constitute a rebuttal. I am not questioning its existence in bacteria. I am asserting its existence in bacteria. Your excuse about there being no "noise" in bacteria, besides being palpable rubbish, was intended as an excuse to allow you to pretend that bacteria are immune from accumulating deleterious mutations, remember? If you are now admitting that bacteria are subject to Muller's ratchet, then you admit that they do in fact do so, and that moreover they do so by a mechanism that does not apply to sexually reproducing organisms. No. As he can't explain what he's talking about, and you are at least willing to try, I believe I'll stick to debating with you.

I make it 51. I don't know how the characters in red display on your browser, but on mine they're the fortissimo symbol followed by a capital E with a circumflex. This makes your question someone opaque.