Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
37 online now:
Britton, dwise1, Heathen, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,849 Year: 18,885/19,786 Month: 1,305/1,705 Week: 111/446 Day: 7/104 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2722 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 196 of 458 (520972)
08-25-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by greyseal
08-25-2009 7:04 AM


Re: What is information?
Come on bro, drop the chinese whispers analogy
You still haven't explained how new info arises in your analogy.
quote:
A successful mutation (and every one of us is a mutated copy of our parents) results in the next generation.

mutations (and changes) add up...and hey presto.



Not saying that changes can't be made to the "whisper", but that if these mutations are carried on then this is because they have meaning in the language. The mutations may also be corrected by the next kid or just not expressed. Also if there are more negative mutations than positive ones then overall as they add up, the message becomes more nonsense than meaningful.
Still not sure where this is going, but is amusing enough

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by greyseal, posted 08-25-2009 7:04 AM greyseal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2009 8:13 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 197 of 458 (520974)
08-25-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:06 AM


Re: What is information?
but that if these mutations are carried on then this is because they have meaning in the language.

This is where the concept of selection enters the analogy. It is selection that allows the maintenance of beneficial mutations, 'meaningful sentences' in our analogy. If our children refuse to pass on the message if it makes no sense then we will never end up with total gibberish. Of course if we just have one line of children that is game over, but consider the first child tells 2 people his message and they convey it to 2 more each who convey it to 2 more each. In this case we are much more likely to end up with a set of messages at any given point down our tree of children which all make some sense as nonsense sentences have been removed by selection.

As with the example discussed above, this is the most extreme form of selection, but it is the simplest to fit into this extended Chinese whispers analogy.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:06 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2722 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 198 of 458 (520975)
08-25-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wounded King
08-25-2009 7:41 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
In my opinion the whole moth thing should be avoided. There are far better examples of natural selection an/or mutational changes than discussing a controversial one. The point is (as far as i am aware) that the way the research was carried out was somewhat dodgy.
quote:
But if IDist/creationists were reasonable people we wouldn't keep having these same debates over and over again.
I believe greyseal brought up this topic in message 163 and as far as I can gather he is not a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2009 7:41 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2009 8:26 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 200 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2009 8:53 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 199 of 458 (520979)
08-25-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:19 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
The peppered moth is a perfectly fine example of natural selection. Aside from some relatively minor flaws in the experiments - addressed by later work - there's simply nothing wrong with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:19 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:53 PM PaulK has acknowledged this reply

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 200 of 458 (520983)
08-25-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:19 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
The point is (as far as i am aware) that the way the research was carried out was somewhat dodgy.

There was a thread on this some time ago, Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths, where the evidence on this was discussed. In the scientific literature the weight of evidence still seems firmly on Kettlewell's side up to a point (Rudge, 2006). Certainly there are justifiable criticisms that a number of his field experiments were highly artificial, but there is considerable other experimental evidence to support his hypothesis that bird predation is an important selective factor on the peppered moth (Cook,2003).

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:19 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 201 of 458 (520992)
08-25-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by greyseal
08-25-2009 7:04 AM


Re: What is information?
greyseal writes:

I'm not very competent with quoting others - if there's an easier way than by hand using the "peek" button, I don't know what it is.

When you're replying to a message, the full text of the message you're replying to is displayed immediately below the text box where you type your reply. If you scroll down a little to see it, you'll see that it's an exact replica of the message, including all annotations such as the author, the message number, who it's a reply to, and so forth. You can copy-n-paste from this text into your own message. And if you need the precise exact raw text that he used, perhaps because you want to keep his use of bold and italics or to maintain his URLs, then click on the "Peek Mode" radio button at the top right of his message and cut-n-paste from that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by greyseal, posted 08-25-2009 7:04 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 202 of 458 (521001)
08-25-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
08-25-2009 12:32 AM


Re: What is information?
That ol' burden of proof is getting a bit heavy for you, isn't it?

Not at all. I'm just simply drew another line to see if anyone could cross it. There should be a way to prove if certain mutations are random or if James Shapiro's natural genetic engineering can do the trick. If you repeat the same experiment in the lab over and over again and look at the results, it should be able to support it either way. Here is a quote from Shapiro's website:

Examining the fate of Mudlac DNA in sectored colonies
showed that these same functions are subject to developmental control, like controlling elements in maize. All these experiences confirmed McClintock’s view that cells frequently respond to stimuli by restructuring their genomes and provided novel insights into the natural genetic engineering processes involved in evolution.

Another reason why I stop the debate is that it just goes on and on. If I don't stop then someone else will come along. Also, debate such as, "Your view is just religion." doesn't render my debate as false or irrelevant. Everyone has an agenda but the only agendas of irreducibly complex structures and CSI in DNA are the specific functions these things perform. These things are just there and they have no religious agendas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-25-2009 12:32 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2151 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 203 of 458 (521005)
08-25-2009 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Wounded King
08-25-2009 7:55 AM


Re: What is information?
I think I agree 100% with what you said WK - my analogy massively over-simplifies genetics, so reading more into it than I meant will strain it past breaking-point.

I'll also note that RAZD was correct in being specific regarding natural selection versus evolution - I had a knee-jerk reaction to creationists saying "microevolution" when it wasn't warranted.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2009 7:55 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2722 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 204 of 458 (521089)
08-25-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by PaulK
08-25-2009 8:26 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
exactly, i'm not saying that natural selection didn't occur, but rather because of the controversial nature of the way the research was carried out I think it is best to stick to examples where the research isn't so controversial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2009 8:26 AM PaulK has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-25-2009 9:07 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2009 9:26 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 205 of 458 (521091)
08-25-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by greyseal
08-25-2009 7:27 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
Hi again greyseal

Ah, I see they DID glue (not staple) moths to trees...but (from what it seems to say) to test whether moth colour and environment colour affects predation levels, yes?

So are you Canadian or English? (nevermind).

Yes, and no matter what else is said about birds seeing in 5 or 6 primary colors, including ultraviolet, it does show that the white moths were camouflaged against the white trunks and the dark moths were camouflaged against the dark trunks. Daytime predation was thereby reduced for the camouflaged moths in either environment. This doesn't account for all predation, but nightime predation by bats would be unaffected by coloring, so we end up with a slight benefit to be adapted for camouflage in either case, and this is sufficient to tilt selection for the camouflaged variety and shift the alleles in the population from one to the other.

oh well now I have to disagree, to a certain extent - after all, natural selection favouring one mutation over the other due to a change in the breeding locale causing a shift in the allele density in a population...and that's not evolution?

Curiously, I didn't say it wasn't evolution, just that it was not an example of a mutation arising that shows a benefit -- the mutation was already extant in the population, and the melanic variety was known about well before hand.

It wasn't some sort of darwinist plot to..do..something..actually why are creationists against the idea of the peppered moth and it's varieties?

They aren't really -- when you read their articles for content they concede micro-evolution occurs and note that this is a case of adaptation etcetcetc. What they like to do is play hide-the-pea to keep you distracted while they shift the goal-posts to claim that this is not an example of evolution -- meaning evolution of new features. It's the usual dishonesty approach pretending to be reasonable (you know, the old saw about the best lies have a grain of truth).

oceans made of drops, yada yada, journey begins with one footstep, etc, etc.

Yeah, but they don't add new information, all the mutations already existed in the DNA in some stored format yada yada.

Welcome to the fray.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by greyseal, posted 08-25-2009 7:27 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2009 6:21 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 227 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 8:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 206 of 458 (521093)
08-25-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:53 PM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
exactly, i'm not saying that natural selection didn't occur, but rather because of the controversial nature of the way the research was carried out I think it is best to stick to examples where the research isn't so controversial.

But of course creationists can manufacture a "controversy" about any subject by getting up on their little soapboxes and talking rubbish about it. If we are not going to discuss anything which is "controversial" in this sense, then what can we discuss that is remotely relevant to evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:53 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2009 1:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 207 of 458 (521096)
08-25-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:53 PM


What's the controversy?
Hi Arphy, welcome to the fray.

exactly, i'm not saying that natural selection didn't occur, but rather because of the controversial nature of the way the research was carried out I think it is best to stick to examples where the research isn't so controversial.

So, if you admit that natural selection occurred, then what is controversial about the Peppered Moths being an example of Natural Selection?

Or do you think you can create a controversy by ignoring what the real evidence and scientific experiments show and instead focus on creationist lies and misrepresentations?

Message 1 compares the creationist arguments to the actual experiments done by Kettlewell and subsequently by Majerus, starting with the creationist claims, and it shows that there are several basic falsehoods in the creationist arguments:

quote:
Please note that this is a creationist site and they have just said that "This is natural selection in action, but not evolution."

He goes on to imply that this disproves evolution because the moth varieties are not now different species. But lets look at this claim:

...........................natural selection.......speciation
theory tested..................yes.....................no.....
theory validated..............yes.....................no.....
theory invalidated............no......................no.....

Because speciation is not tested in this scenario, the results cannot be used to invalidate the theory.

Please note how this creationist website shows you exactly how the mechanism of color change in a population works. The moths did not decide to change color: there were existing genetic variations that made one population more able to survive under one condition and the other population more able to survive under a changed condition.
...
Thus the claims on the creationist site:

  • "that Kettlewell's compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators" is outright wrong - it is verified by M. E. N. Majerus, in his book Melanism - Evolution in Action (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998) and by others that followed Kettlewell.
  • "Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree." And this issue has been discussed above and answered - yes some of the initial science was not done as properly as it would be done today, but the different studies isolated different aspects of the situation, the overall conclusion has been validated, and the effect is confirmed by others.

POINTS IN AGREEMENT

  • there were two varieties of the moth Biston betularia in England before the 'Industrial Revolution' and on average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, if not more (the dark variety was first noticed in the early 1800's)
  • the 'Industrial Revolution' filled the air with soot, covering the trees and rocks with a toxic film, killing the lichens and darkening the trees
  • soon the light variety of moth was easily seen while the darker were camouflaged.
  • by the turn of the century, 98% of the moths were of the dark variety, and finally
  • the change in populations was due to predation of the more visible variety.
And thus we see agreement that this example is about the Natural Selection part of evolution, and not about speciation, and further that it cannot be about speciation because it is talking about the relative size of populations of two varieties of the same species of moth.

The creationist claim that it does not show speciation is the lie of misdirection - it was never claimed to be an example of speciation. The creationist claim that Kettlewell's work has not been validated by other scientists is shown to be a falsehood, and the creationist claim that "we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks" is also shown to be false.

Aside from those falsehoods there is full and complete agreement in the moths showing natural selection.

What's the controversy? Between truth and falsehood? Shouldn't that be resolved by using the truth? The evidence is unequivocal that the population changed, and then changed back, in response to changing ecology and preferential predation. Curiously, the only "controversy" appears to be the fact that creationists are lying about the evidence and the science.

Should lies be taught in school?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:53 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 208 of 458 (521115)
08-26-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Dr Adequate
08-25-2009 9:07 PM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
As I said there is no real controversy. And if we switch examples just because of creationist calumnies what's to stop them treating the new example in the same way ?

I say that we should stick with the peppered moth for that reason and because it provides an excellent opportunity to expose the creationist reliance on lies and slander.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-25-2009 9:07 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Arphy, posted 08-26-2009 6:02 AM PaulK has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1932 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 209 of 458 (521128)
08-26-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Wounded King
08-25-2009 7:55 AM


Re: What is information?
I'd tend to disagree with this. I can certainly accept that DNA can be considered a code, but I am not sure it is helpful to think of it as a language

To me, the language analogy fails almost immediately. A point mutation changes a letter, and the whole sentance becomes meaningless, nevermind just the mutated word. How do we interpret the result of this?

I think viewing DNA as pure machine code is much closer - however you mutate the code, it still means something. If the mutation is in an instruction code binary string, it will simply change it to another instruction and something will still happen. With DNA point mutations in coding sections, amino acids will still be selected, proteins will still be built, things will still happen - whatever they happen to be...

Would you agree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2009 7:55 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Wounded King, posted 08-26-2009 6:44 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2722 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 210 of 458 (521129)
08-26-2009 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by PaulK
08-26-2009 1:36 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
What the...???
All that I was saying was that as many of you have pointed out already, some aspects of the research were dodgy. Can we agree on that. There has been plenty of research on natural selection that was carried out competently. So I was just saying, let's not get sidetracked on whether moths were stuck on trees or not, I don't care too much either way. Instead let's get back on topic. As I remember It wasn't creationists debating whether or not they were stuck on trees but rather it was a debate going on betweeen everyone else. So yes, it was a bit controversial even between evolutionists. As i have said before I am not suggesting that natural selection didn't happen in this instance. I am not attacking evolution in writing this but rather think that we are getting sidetracked. So lets not get up in arms about everything that a creationist writes. Hope this helps

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2009 1:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2009 6:09 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Wounded King, posted 08-26-2009 6:30 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 220 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 2:06 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 226 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 8:47 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019