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:   Adding information to the genome.
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 280 (534245)
11-06-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Huntard
11-06-2009 6:07 AM


Re: Willfully...
Hantard writes:
Ape writes:
Huntard, do you believe that information systems evolve solely as a natural process, or do you know they do?
they evolve solely by natural processes, simply because if something evolves, it is a natural process.
And then Huntard writes:
I have not seen any information system come about without anything natural either.
You're not answering the question, your begging it. Just answer the question honestly. Do you believe natural laws produce information systems. And if so how?
Then you flip an adjective into a noun without suspecting that I'll see your dishonesty.
Huntard writes:
Ape writes:
Does energy and matter create themselves purely as natural process?
What has that got to do with anything? And yes, they do. Energy turns into matter and matter into energy all by itself.
It's got everything to do with everything. I'm not talking about conservation, I'm talking about creation. Does matter create itself?
Huntard writes:
LTA writes:
Is that what you believe or do you know it to be the case?
So far all evidence points to the fact that it does.
Or do you interpret bits of the evidence to fit what you believe?
Huntard writes:
LTA writes:
Can you show me how rocks turned into humans, or is that just a belief?
If that is what you think happened, then yes, that is a belief. An erroneous one at that.
So you don't believe the whole theory, just the parts that you want to believe.
Huntard writes:
Yes. Beliefs are beliefs. I don't hold too many of them though.

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 149 by Huntard, posted 11-06-2009 6:07 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 11-06-2009 7:56 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 156 by Huntard, posted 11-06-2009 8:16 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 152 of 280 (534247)
11-06-2009 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Wounded King
11-05-2009 7:12 AM


Re: Gene networks in development
From what you've said in this post I'd just like to welcome you to the evolutionary side in this debate
Yes, this was always a high-risk strategy. Let me (somewhat hastily) explain myself. The fact that the mammalian jaw is largely under the control of two hox genes makes it a lot easier for RM/NS to achieve that particular configuration. But the presence of hox genes, and the genes they control, shouts "intelligent design".
Let's forget the actual jaw, for a moment, and consider the genetic structure that expresses it. What evolved first? The hox genes? Nothing to control. The subordinate genes? Nothing to control them.
It's another chicken-and-the-egg conundrum, like DNA and RNA or DNA and protein. Simultaneous and mutually-dependent cause and effect.
So needless to say, rumours of my defection have been greatly exaggerated

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Wounded King, posted 11-05-2009 7:12 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 11-06-2009 7:44 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2009 8:23 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 153 of 280 (534248)
11-06-2009 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Kaichos Man
11-06-2009 7:35 AM


Re: Gene networks in development
Kaichos Man writes:
Let's forget the actual jaw, for a moment, and consider the genetic structure that expresses it. What evolved first? The hox genes? Nothing to control. The subordinate genes? Nothing to control them.
A good topic for another thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 7:35 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 154 of 280 (534250)
11-06-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by LucyTheApe
11-06-2009 7:28 AM


Re: Willfully...
LucyTheApe writes:
Do you believe natural laws produce information systems?
Reality *is* an information system. For example, every ray of sunshine striking a leaf is a transmission of information from the sun to the leaf. I'm talking about Shannon information, of course.
I am already aware of your misimpression that Shannon information requires intelligence from the Evolving New Information thread, so there's no need for you to go over this again.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-06-2009 7:28 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-20-2009 8:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 155 of 280 (534251)
11-06-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
11-05-2009 9:53 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
The Kimura quote, the Dawkins weasel program, and the means of genetic control over development and metabolism are three examples where you've repeated the same errors over and over again
It's only your side of the debate that considers them errors.
For example, on Kimura you have insisted that he had no problem with natural selection. And while it is true that he suggested selection played a role at the phenotypic level, he also said this:
"What I want to emphasize is that relaxation of natural selection is the prerequisite for new evolutionary progress. In other words, "liberation from selective constraint" enables extensive neutral evolution to occur, creating new variants,some of which turn out to be useful in a new environment...In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of random genetic drift as a major cause of evolution. We must be liberated, so to speak, from the selective constraint posed by the neo-Darwinian (or the synthetic) theory of evolution."
Do you agree with that, Percy? Are you convinced that relaxation of selective constraint is a prerequisite for evolutionary progress? Do you believe we must be liberated from the erroneous tenets of neo-Darwinism?
I asked you (and Coyote, I think) to explain how the genome can evolve by one method and the phenotype by another. If I am wrong, then please forgive me, but I don't recall getting an answer on that one.
Debates aren't won by failing to be convinced through a campaign of uncomprehension
No they are not. And unacceptance does not mean uncomprehension.
They're won by grasping your opponents arguments and composing effective rebuttals.
Indeed. And if your opponent doesn't feel your rebuttal is effective, he's likely to keep using the same arguments.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 11-05-2009 9:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Huntard, posted 11-06-2009 8:24 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 161 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2009 8:48 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 156 of 280 (534252)
11-06-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by LucyTheApe
11-06-2009 7:28 AM


Re: Willfully...
LucyTheApe writes:
You're not answering the question, your begging it. Just answer the question honestly. Do you believe natural laws produce information systems. And if so how?
That's not the question you asked, this is:
LucyTheApe writes in Message 148:
Huntard, do you believe that information systems evolve solely as a natural process, or do you know they do?
Nothing in there about laws. You changed your question when you didn't like the answer. When you bring in natural laws, what do you mean by "information system"? Anything that contains information? Then the answer is yes, they arise by natural laws.
Then you flip an adjective into a noun without suspecting that I'll see your dishonesty.
MY dishonesty? You changed the question when you didn't like the answer. How's that for dishonesty?
It's got everything to do with everything. I'm not talking about conservation, I'm talking about creation. Does matter create itself?
Yes, out of energy, all the time. Still has nothing to do with information though.
Or do you interpret bits of the evidence to fit what you believe?
No. I'm not a creationist.
So you don't believe the whole theory, just the parts that you want to believe.
I don't believe any of it. It has convinced me of its accuracy. belief has nothing to do with it. I'm not a creationist. And nowhere does the theory of evolution say men came from rocks. That is you erroneous belief.
No idea why you quoted that last sentence again without commenting though. Like I told you, I don't hold that many beliefs.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-06-2009 7:28 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 157 of 280 (534253)
11-06-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Kaichos Man
11-06-2009 7:35 AM


Re: Gene networks in development
But the presence of hox genes, and the genes they control, shouts "intelligent design".
Not so much really, but I understand you believe that.
What evolved first? The hox genes? Nothing to control. The subordinate genes? Nothing to control them.
All that is nothing but empty assertion. The idea that 'subordinate' genes only have one regulator, or only 1 type of regulator, is nonsensical. There are multiple families of transcription factors, of which the homeobox genes are only 1 superfamily comprising multiple different families of transcription factors including the Hox genes and the Distalless-like family (Dlx). Homeobox genes are found in very primitive organisms indeed, such as sponges and cnidaria but even before these genes arose there is no reason to think many of the genes downstream of them in modern networks weren't already extant and regulated some other way.
We had a previous poster on this site who thought he had a killing blow against evolution with research showing that a coral had homologues to genes which were found to be expressed in the developing human nervous system. He chose to ignore the fact that the same genes were also involved in early morphogenic movements around gastrulation and found in species throughout the animal kingdom, instead he trumpeted the result as [thread=-1756], and went on to claim the genes were 'genetic sequences for complex nerve function'. For my response to his argument see my Message 263
The problem with saying things like "It's another chicken-and-the-egg conundrum" is that you ignore the fact that evolution gives us a clear and obvious answer for that, eggs predate chickens, and indeed birds in general, by millions of years. Similarly comparative developmental and genetic studies show us the sort of primitive developmental networks which can be ramified through duplication and variation to the more complex developmental networks we see in modern metazoans.
Your "Simultaneous and mutually-dependent cause and effect" simply isn't needed because the various components of these networks are arising, multiplying and developing dynamically in line with the increasing body plan diversity we can see in the fossil record.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 7:35 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 8:46 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 158 of 280 (534254)
11-06-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Kaichos Man
11-06-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
Kaichos Man writes:
It's only your side of the debate that considers them errors.
Yes, that's because our "side" cares about such pesky little things as accuracy and truth.
Do you agree with that, Percy? Are you convinced that relaxation of selective constraint is a prerequisite for evolutionary progress? Do you believe we must be liberated from the erroneous tenets of neo-Darwinism?
Nowhere did he say they were erroneous. You made that up. He wants to relax them, meaning he thinks they play a lesser part than hitherto thought. He doesn't say they are completely wrong.
I asked you (and Coyote, I think) to explain how the genome can evolve by one method and the phenotype by another. If I am wrong, then please forgive me, but I don't recall getting an answer on that one.
the evolution of the phenotype is a result of the evolution of the genotype (if I am not mistaken).
No they are not. And unacceptance does not mean uncomprehension.
It's not that you just don't accept it, you keep repeating the same mistakes.
Indeed. And if your opponent doesn't feel your rebuttal is effective, he's likely to keep using the same arguments.
Yet your arguments have been delt with, the answers given, you just ignore them. That's not just not accepting them, that's completely ignoring anything that doesn't agree with what you think.
Like my mamalian jaw "slowly" evolving example (which was first mentioned by RAZD), I'm guessing you now accept that this is how it could have happened? You didn't respond to my last post on the subject, so I guess your satisfied with the answer.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 8:13 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 9:58 PM Huntard has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 159 of 280 (534255)
11-06-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
11-05-2009 9:53 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
The Kimura quote, the Dawkins weasel program, and the means of genetic control over development and metabolism are three examples where you've repeated the same errors over and over again
It's only your side of the debate that considers them errors.
For example, on Kimura you have insisted that he had no problem with natural selection. And while it is true that he suggested selection played a role at the phenotypic level, he also said this:
"What I want to emphasize is that relaxation of natural selection is the prerequisite for new evolutionary progress. In other words, "liberation from selective constraint" enables extensive neutral evolution to occur, creating new variants,some of which turn out to be useful in a new environment...In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of random genetic drift as a major cause of evolution. We must be liberated, so to speak, from the selective constraint posed by the neo-Darwinian (or the synthetic) theory of evolution."
Do you agree with that, Percy? Are you convinced that relaxation of selective constraint is a prerequisite for evolutionary progress? Do you believe we must be liberated from the erroneous tenets of neo-Darwinism?
I asked you (and Coyote, I think) to explain how the genome can evolve by one method and the phenotype by another. If I am wrong, then please forgive me, but I don't recall getting an answer on that one.
Debates aren't won by failing to be convinced through a campaign of uncomprehension
No they are not. And unacceptance does not mean uncomprehension.
They're won by grasping your opponents arguments and composing effective rebuttals.
Indeed. And if your opponent doesn't feel your rebuttal is effective, he's likely to keep using the same arguments.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 11-05-2009 9:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 160 of 280 (534256)
11-06-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
11-05-2009 9:53 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
The Kimura quote, the Dawkins weasel program, and the means of genetic control over development and metabolism are three examples where you've repeated the same errors over and over again
It's only your side of the debate that considers them errors.
For example, on Kimura you have insisted that he had no problem with natural selection. And while it is true that he suggested selection played a role at the phenotypic level, he also said this:
"What I want to emphasize is that relaxation of natural selection is the prerequisite for new evolutionary progress. In other words, "liberation from selective constraint" enables extensive neutral evolution to occur, creating new variants,some of which turn out to be useful in a new environment...In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of random genetic drift as a major cause of evolution. We must be liberated, so to speak, from the selective constraint posed by the neo-Darwinian (or the synthetic) theory of evolution."
Do you agree with that, Percy? Are you convinced that relaxation of selective constraint is a prerequisite for evolutionary progress? Do you believe we must be liberated from the erroneous tenets of neo-Darwinism?
I asked you (and Coyote, I think) to explain how the genome can evolve by one method and the phenotype by another. If I am wrong, then please forgive me, but I don't recall getting an answer on that one.
Debates aren't won by failing to be convinced through a campaign of uncomprehension
No they are not. And unacceptance does not mean uncomprehension.
They're won by grasping your opponents arguments and composing effective rebuttals.
Indeed. And if your opponent doesn't feel your rebuttal is effective, he's likely to keep using the same arguments.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 11-05-2009 9:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 11-06-2009 9:15 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2009 1:54 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 161 of 280 (534257)
11-06-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Kaichos Man
11-06-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
Are you convinced that relaxation of selective constraint is a prerequisite for evolutionary progress? Do you believe we must be liberated from the erroneous tenets of neo-Darwinism?
Here is the core of the problem right here. You started with a statment which does refelect what Kimura says and which I doubt Percy or anyone would object to, after all if selective pressures become very acute then stasis in a viable form may be the only possible survival strategy. Then you go on to make a statement that is an outright caricature of Kimura, where he says 'selective contraints' you substitute the ridiculous 'erroneous tenets'.
And if your opponent doesn't feel your rebuttal is effective, he's likely to keep using the same arguments.
But he should also explain why he doesn't find your argument effective, not merely restate his own.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 8:13 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 8:54 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 162 of 280 (534260)
11-06-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Kaichos Man
11-06-2009 8:31 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
Hi Kaichos Man,
Wounded King's reply in Message 161 pretty much sums it up, and here's a specific example of what we're talking about:
Kaichos Man writes:
I asked you (and Coyote, I think) to explain how the genome can evolve by one method and the phenotype by another. If I am wrong, then please forgive me, but I don't recall getting an answer on that one.
And you never will get an answer to that specific question, because neither I nor Coyote nor anyone else on the evolution side thinks there are two different methods of evolution, one that changes the genome and some other one that changes the phenotype. Barring environmental and random developmental influences, the genes control the phenotype.
What's baffling is that you keep asking this question no matter how many times we keep explaining to you that there aren't two different mechanisms at work. Rather than just repeating your original question, why don't you ask questions that are responses to and are informed by the explanations? If you ask a question and receive an explanation you don't understand, repeating the question doesn't tell us anything about what you didn't understand.
Experience tells us that once you find yourself explaining how to debate or how to think or how to problem solve that the situation is already hopeless, though this isn't invariably true. You don't have to agree with our explanations, but you do have to understand them, or at least work toward understanding them.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix member name.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 8:31 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 9:30 PM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 163 of 280 (534294)
11-06-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Kaichos Man
11-06-2009 8:31 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
I asked you (and Coyote, I think) to explain how the genome can evolve by one method and the phenotype by another.
Good grief, did you really?
That's very funny, but you will never understand why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-06-2009 8:31 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 164 of 280 (534326)
11-06-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wounded King
11-06-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Gene networks in development
there is no reason to think many of the genes downstream of them in modern networks weren't already extant and regulated some other way
Okay, I take it from that statement that you're suggesting the "subordinate" genes evolved first. Given that, as you say, these genes were already being regulated "some other way", can you explain the step-by-step causality of a new gene arising that 1) has the sole function of controlling other genes, b) knows exactly which genes to control and c) has a way of replacing or overriding their current form of regulation?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2009 8:23 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Wounded King, posted 11-09-2009 8:52 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 165 of 280 (534327)
11-06-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Wounded King
11-06-2009 8:48 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
Then you go on to make a statement that is an outright caricature of Kimura, where he says 'selective contraints' you substitute the ridiculous 'erroneous tenets'
A caricature of Kimura? This is the sentence in question:
We must be liberated, so to speak, from the selective constraint posed by the neo-Darwinian (or the synthetic) theory of evolution
Tell me, what is it that is posed by the neo-Darwinian (or the synthetic) theory of evolution and from which -according to Kimura- we must be liberated?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2009 8:48 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024