Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

RE--Every Science discipline from molecular biology to genomics have proven Darwin correct period!--That's interesting OLEGDEI. Would you be willing to back that up by giving me at least one example of observed information being added to the chromosomal DNA of any organism in such a way as to improve that organisms ability to survive?Or how about just one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major kinds?It seems to me that if Darwin has been "proven" correct by so many scientific disciplines, that you would have no problem presenting at least one example of my above requests.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Hello RAZD, Thank you for your tips they were most helpful. As for my questions being off topic, I respectfully disagree. This thread is about rather or not evolution would've given us infrared eyesight. The type of evidence that we would need to see in order to conclude that any phenotype (including night vision, or infrared vision) could occur by evolutionary means, would be either observation of added information to the chromosomal DNA in a positive manner, or at least one finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major kinds. These are the only things that would conclusively demonstrate that the theory was even possible to any reasonably open minded skeptic. Also I would like you to note that I am prepared to define "information" in a manner that can be quantified upon request. I realize that I am very new to how things work here, but am I to understand that if topics overlap each other, that we can not pursue the outcome of the conversation within the confines of one thread?Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Hi Dr Adequate, you seem pretty confident that the evidence I ask for exists. I would assert to you that you are deceived by one of evolution's best kept secrets. That being that there is NO fossil or biological evidence for evolution. Or at least not the kind of evolution that is conjured up in the minds of 95% of us laymen. I believe some sticklers prefer the terms abiogenesis and universal common decent. So if by "evolution" you just mean observed changes in a population over time, then yes evolution is a fact. But if you mean spontaneous generation of the first living cell and molecules to men transition over large expanses of time, then no, there is no evidence that such an absurd event could have ever taken place. So this should be fun. I will give a brief explanation here, and since I am new to these forums I'll let you direct me to which ever thread you feel to be the more appropriate with which we can carry on with our conversation.FOSSIL RECORD- In order to rely on the fossil record as evidence for universal common decent, one would have to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms. I am sure that you are aware that Darwin himself first brought up the problem. Origin of Species (1859) p.280 Note that Darwin fell back on the "imperfection" of the fossil record to explain the lack of intermediates. Some would argue that today (150+ years in to the future) the problem has been solved. So why then does one of today's most prominent geologists, Donald R. Prothero, continue to assert that there is still a problem by saying; "Creationists often assert that the fossil record is nearly Complete and should show the innumerable insensibly graded transitions that Darwin expected in 1859. Yeteven with nearly 200 years of collecting behind us, the fossil record is relatively complete only in certain areas as mentioned above. Fossilization is still a highly improbable event, and most creatures that have ever lived do not become fossils." "Evolution, what the fossils say and why it matters." p. 51 He made this statement less than three years ago, and is obviously falling back on Darwin's imperfection of the fossil record argument. Other scientists have affirmed this problem, like the late Stephan Gould who said, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." The Return of the Hopeful Monsters. Or like Ernst Mayr who said: "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance, 1982, p. 524. If you know of and can link me to at least one such finely graduated chain, I would bow in complete acceptance to the theory of evolution.INFORMATION- Richard Dawkins has been quoted as having once said that the DNA of a single celled amoeba has more information than a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. obviously in order for him to make such a claim, there must be a meaningful way to identify and measure information. Wikipedia says: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information." The article also explains that information can be measured by measuring "the information content of a list of symbols based on how predictable they are, or more specifically how easy it is to compute the list through a program: the information content of a sequence is the number of bits of the shortest program that computes it. The sequence below would have a very low algorithmic information measurement since it is a very predictable pattern, and as the pattern continues the measurement would not change. Shannon information would give the same information measurement for each symbol, since they are statistically random, and each new symbol would increase the measurement. 123456789101112131415161718192021" Therefore in DNA, information refers specifically to the measurable algorithmic patterns in which the nucleotides are arranged, and specifically the number of bits of the shortest program that computes that sequence. It is also important to note that it is not necessary for information (in this case) to be mentally received and appreciated by a receiver in order to be classified as information. Another example of information might be when scientists study the signals sent by a honey bee to others in the hive (by way of his dance), or those sent by a dolphin (with its movements and high pitches), they determine the complexity of the information in much the same way. SETI researchers likewise conclude that if a single string of prime numbers were to be detected being transmitted from deep space this would also be a much higher algorithmic measurement then regular space noise. So much so that they would deem such a transmission as being intelligent in origin. Likewise the information in DNA is considered more and more complex as the bits of computable data become higher and higher when computing the algorithm patterns of the nucleotides of the genes in the DNA of an organism. When we compare that information measured in DNA, with say the information found in one book like an Encyclopedia Britannica, we find it is truly much more complex. One thousand times more complex, according to Dawkins. This brings me back to my original question. In order to transition from fish to creatures with legs, there would have to be a tremendous adding to and building up of information in the chromosomal DNA of an organism. So in order to biologically prove this was even possible we would have to have at least one observed example of a mutation adding new information to the DNA. Not just "copies and repeats" but actual new information that forms a new and novel function. Again, I would bow in complete acceptance to the theory of evolution if someone could just give me one case of this being proven to occur.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

My sincere apology all. I don't mean to topic jump. I am fine with moving to any thread of a monitors suggestion. Thanks

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Yes I agree. I made the terrible mistake of trying to enter into that discussion myself once. When evolutionary scientists can't even agree on exactly what constitutes a species and creationists can't agree on what constitutes a kind, then the discussion is destined to die an agonizing death. However if you'll notice in my post #238, I linked to several evolutionary scientists own comments that seem to clearly make my point. This deems it unnecessary to engage in the "kinds" issue. Clearly paleontologists will mostly agree with the fact that there is no example of even one smooth finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms. I think I am pretty reasonable and would of course never expect one example from each generation. I just think that the transition should be smooth and gradual with no large jumps. For example, in Gould's article "Hooking Leviathan by its past" he claims that there is a good fossil chain for whale evolution. Yet when you look closely you see it is a chain with only five links and there are large leaps of change between each link. Those large jumps are just unacceptable in my view.So if we are going to question why evolution did not produce infrared sight, in my opinion we first have to prove that it even produced the eye.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Hi JuC, thank you for your comments. I agree with you that it would. However as I stated in post #238, there doesn't seem to be one single example of a finely graduated chain. Darwin himself first brought up the problem. Origin of Species (1859) p.280. Other scientists have affirmed this problem, like the late Stephan Gould who said, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." The Return of the Hopeful Monsters. Or like Ernst Mayr who said: "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance, 1982, p. 524.Yes at first I thought the same thing JuC. But then someone pointed out to me that in order to go from a primitive form to a more advanced form, then mutations which add information to the genetic code must occur all the time. However in cases where a species lost their eye sight, it is merely a situation where already existing information has been lost. This is not an explanation for how it got there to begin with. We should see cases of positive mutations all the time, but no one seems to be able to give me a good example of even one. You can't demonstrate universal common decent through a loss of information. Follow me? In order to prove that universal common decent is plausible someone needs to come up with at least one example of observed added information to the chromosomal DNA of an organism in such a way as to improve its survivability in someway.

I think if you are going to try and make a case for universal common decent (UCD) based on E. coli or any other type of bacteria, you are going to have an incredibly difficult road ahead of you. I realize that evolutionary biologists love to study bacteria because they are asexual and reproduce very quickly, making it possible to compare multi generations over a relatively very short period of time. However there extreme uniqueness to all other forms of living organisms make them a very poor candidate to demonstrate and prove how the rest of the living world could have developed. Bacteria often develop mutations that allow them to adapt to many different environments. Some scientists even reasonably interpret this adaptive characteristic as a "design" feature. Before we go jumping on the "aah Ha! evolution"--band wagon, I should point out that most of these mutation are a type of antagonistic pleiotropy, where they sacrifice some of their other systems to survive within an environment that has become hostile. Antagonistic pleiotropy can be helpful in the short term, and provides a genetic survival mechanism, but if the environment changes the mutation most often becomes detrimental. This isn't a really big problem for bacteria because they reproduce much faster than humans and can afford the "cost" of losing 99.999% of the population. The very small percentage that do survive are sufficient to replenish the population rather quickly.If you study the Lenski paper closely you see that the transformation took place in the E. coli F' plasmid containing the lac operon. The operon possesses + 1 frameshift, so it is unable to express genes for lactose catabolism. After the precise cultivation conditions of lactose containing medium, the lactose operon on a few of the plasmids revert to lac+. If you recall I was asking for added information to the "chromosomal" DNA of an organism because that is what we would need to see in order to conclude the plausibility of UCD. The problem here is that this transformation was measured in the plasmid and not the regular chromosome. The reason this is a problem is because plasmids operate independently of the chromosomal DNA and mostly only occur in bacteria. Any changes that take place with in them are therefore not at all an example of how all life could have developed. That fact coupled with the destructive nature of the mutations in E. coli in the long term, logically disqualifies them as evidence for how life could have developed to its curren state.

To the contrary, Darwin excused the problem with the imperfection of the fossil record and was certain that these chains would eventually be discovered. But now we have had more than 150 years of searching and there still has yet to be even one announcement of such a chain. By far, the fossil record is anything but a place where one can look to for proof of UCD. Instead of purveyors, such as the Smithsonian Institute, constantly announcing newly found missing links, they have to dispose of thousands of duplicate fossils every year. Darwin believed that the number of transitional species would have to be literally astronomical if his theory were true. If you do the math, he is right. Consider the following. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. Normal human growth rate is estimated at about 2% per year, but for the sake of argument lets say that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%. In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that have supposedly existed for several millions of years. "You got a lot a splaning to do Lucy!" I think I have been very careful not to say "positive mutation" with out making it clear that I mean a mutation that is beneficial to the survival of the organism. Don't confuse my use of the term with the way you have heard other creationists use it. When a mutation occurred in mice that caused them to lose pigmentation in their hair (they became white) they had an advantage from predators on sandy beaches that their dark relatives did not. That was a loss of information, but still a "positive mutation" in that situation. So I am looking for a gain in new information that also has a positive outcome. Yes I know all about the moths. Those were not the result of additions of new information. Those were merely variations of alleles in the (already existing) gene pool, and being selected by natural selection.BTW, relaying knowledge you receive in your own words is not plagiary. Otherwise you would have to cite every school teacher and professor you ever had.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

There are three enzymes involved in the nylon waste eating bacteria which are F-EI, F-EII, and F-EIII, and two enzymes involved in the Pseudomonas NK87 which are P-EI and P-EII. Take a closer look at the abstract and notice that all the enzymes involved are located on plasmids. PLASMIDS are a small circular unit of DNA that replicate within a cell completely independent of the chromosomal DNA and are mostly only found in bacteria. This is not helpful when trying to prove that dinosaurs could have become birds or land animals became whales.

Very well then. Anyone who wants to continue this discussion I will take see you here---Evolving New Information