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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 151 of 752 (575939)
08-21-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 7:20 PM


"No, I did. 'Cos it's obviously true." So any and all genetic mutations result in a GAIN in information?? Is that what you are getting at Dr claw?
BTW, feels good to be beaten again. Sure missed you and Dr. Jones...lol.
"have more information in the gene pool, because you have two alleles where previously you had one." No. When offspring is born, both alleles (from parents) share 50% (give or take) of their information to offspring. So where there were two alleles, now there are one. I get what you are saying, but once two of that species give birth, you would have a completely new allele (supposing half information from each), that would contain some mutated information, and some not.
Damaging DNA can result in mutation, as well as disease, which causes information to be lost, not gained.
"It is manifestly the case that dog breeding has increased the information in the gene pool of Canis lupus, because the information to make wolves still exists, but has been supplemented by the information to make dalmatians and dachsunds and poodles and bulldogs and Old Enlish sheepdogs ... and so forth ..."
OH. At first it didn't make sense. You are saying that OVERALL, all species of dogs have resulted in more information than the previous wolf had originally. I get it. Although genetic information has changed (which is a documented process, that is clearly visible in this case), no species of dog has devised any new information, so much to the point that they cannot be classified as a dog. variation within a species is entirely possible, and VISIBLE in all life today. I'm missing the question here Doc.
"But this is not true."
Your right. You win.
""The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens."
"Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70."
2021, 10
Can I say it? BOOM shacka laka. Mutants, almost without exception became sterile, and inferior. I win.
"Also, they were not selecting for mutations which conferred an advantage, but for any mutation which was visible." This is not entirely accurate, but to some extent. Since the scientists specifically added and removed hairs from the flies face to document advantages.
HOWEVER. The majority of the experiment was random. But isn't evolution random, or are you implying that it was unfair for the scientists to allow organusms to mutate on their own, even in favourable mutation environments. God didn't guide evolution, why should you get that with this experiment?
" And they still did not all go sterile and die, you made that up." See above quote. boomshackalacka.
"Your claim of 400 mutations makes it plain. If you take the natural mutation in primates and do the math, you find that since the divergence of humans and chimps (for example) there must have been about 35 million mutations fixed in the two gene pools: which agrees with observation of the genomes."
Wierd, because I have this experiment, as well as another, that say in one million human years, less than 400, and all bad...
"Rifkin has simply misunderstood the fly experiments."
Really? What about the guys that wrote these books:
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955),
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984),
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964),
H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957),
"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990
Are all these people wrong too? Since they referenced the scientific findings in their books. They must all be wrong too. It's okay. You win. Your right.
"I've come across him before, he used to write for the Guardian." I get it doc, you've come across all these guys. They're all wrong. It's all good. I have no idea how they got published without your personal review.
"That would be two mutations, that's why they happened at different times."
Hence why I said, at 20,000, and 32,000. was that confusing?
"But this is not true. That's just all you've heard about. " OH, I believe that completely. I'm going to assume that thousands of documented mutations occurred, and that they decided to leave out the negative ones...or the ones that did not support the theory of evolution.
"As for human mutation, as I say, we can measure the mutation rate." Possibly. I'm not debating whether that is true or not. My question is, of these mutations, how many bring about start of new and beneficial processes. However, I'm going to assume that this rate depends on diet, smoking, alcohol and drug use, etc.
"It is indeed strikingly in line with the predictions of evolution that a lineage will not produce a new species every sixty years." Not humans. You've missed the point of experimenting on fruit flies entirely, in that a new generation comes about every 12 DAYS or so. Human rate of genetic mutation is much slower, because even if you had some new information (which you don't), you would need a child to give it to. And it would take him 25 years (about) to give it to his offspring.
Since fruit flies can pass mutations much faster, rates are increased. PLEASE tell me you follow.
I'm surprised Doc, usually you kill me with your responses...when this site went down you took a vacation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 9:32 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 155 by abrown9, posted 08-21-2010 9:47 PM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 152 of 752 (575940)
08-21-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Macroevolution at work
"Transfer from what?"
Plasmids are found IN E. coli. They are just independent of the chromosome, hense horizontal transfer. NEXT.
"but if having such a transport system is maladaptive then isn't it an increase in "information" to remove it?"
No. Many organs and bacteria have the ability to repair themselves.
"The origin of those genes was random mutation and natural selection, which is the origin of all genes."
You have in no way demonstrated this.
Who are you. The wizard of Oz? Why do you always go back to it's where it all happened man. It's past, and we're on our way to the future...the world is a pea in a soup of love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 7:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 8:51 PM dennis780 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 752 (575945)
08-21-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by dennis780
08-21-2010 8:19 PM


Re: Macroevolution at work
Plasmids are found IN E. coli.
Yes, I know what a plasmid is. But a plasmid is little more than a platform for gene transfer. The genes being transfered have to come from somewhere; in the case of the experiment referenced, they couldn't have come from resistance already present in the population because the population was comprised entirely of clones of a single individual that had no resistance at all.
So, again - transfer from what? HGT isn't the origin of resistance genes in bacteria, it's how they share those genes amongst themselves.
No. Many organs and bacteria have the ability to repair themselves.
Non sequitur. Please answer the question. If having a transport system that exposes you to an antibiotic is maladaptive (which it is, in the presence of the antibiotic) then isn't in an increase in "information" to be rid of it altogether?
You have in no way demonstrated this.
But I have. Remember? How mutations can add sequence as well as subtract?
Who are you. The wizard of Oz? Why do you always go back to it's where it all happened man. It's past, and we're on our way to the future...the world is a pea in a soup of love.
One bong rip too many, I think. Science is best understood with one's sober mind, with a few exceptions (the story goes that Kary Mullis invented PCR while dropping acid in his hot tub.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 8:19 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by dennis780, posted 08-22-2010 11:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 752 (575952)
08-21-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by dennis780
08-21-2010 8:11 PM


So any and all genetic mutations result in a GAIN in information?? Is that what you are getting at Dr claw?
If they're novel, then it seems that by any sensible definition of information they add information to the gene pool.
If you have some sooper-sekrit definition of information that you're not telling us about, now would be an ideal time to tell us about it.
No. When offspring is born, both alleles (from parents) share 50% (give or take) of their information to offspring. So where there were two alleles, now there are one. I get what you are saying, but once two of that species give birth, you would have a completely new allele (supposing half information from each), that would contain some mutated information, and some not.
That's not how recombination works.
Damaging DNA can result in mutation, as well as disease, which causes information to be lost, not gained.
And your secret method of measuring information is?
OH. At first it didn't make sense. You are saying that OVERALL, all species of dogs have resulted in more information than the previous wolf had originally. I get it. Although genetic information has changed (which is a documented process, that is clearly visible in this case), no species of dog has devised any new information, so much to the point that they cannot be classified as a dog.
And the information in the gene pool has increased.
I never claimed it was an example of speciation.
"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
This quotation does not support your original claim.
And naturally if you select for things other than viability, fertility, and longevity then you are unlikely to increase these and likely to decrease them.
"Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70."
A creationist saying something is, if anything, evidence that it isn't true.
This is not entirely accurate, but to some extent. Since the scientists specifically added and removed hairs from the flies face to document advantages.
What are you talking about?
HOWEVER. The majority of the experiment was random. But isn't evolution random, or are you implying that it was unfair for the scientists to allow organusms to mutate on their own, even in favourable mutation environments. God didn't guide evolution, why should you get that with this experiment?
Again, your point is obscure.
And they still did not all go sterile and die, you made that up." See above quote. boomshackalacka.
You mean the quote that does not in any way say that they all became sterile?
Wierd, because I have this experiment, as well as another, that say in one million human years, less than 400, and all bad...
No you don't. You do have some stuff that creationists made up, but that is not an "experiment" except insofar as it explores the limits of human gullibility.
Are all these people wrong too?
That depends on what they said. If it was some gibberish about all mutant becoming sterile, then yes.
I get it doc, you've come across all these guys.
I've come across Rifkin, and you shouldn't treat a moron as an authority. Unless you want to be wrong.
OH, I believe that completely. I'm going to assume that thousands of documented mutations occurred, and that they decided to leave out the negative ones...or the ones that did not support the theory of evolution.
If you wish to indulge in silly daydreams, I don't see how I can talk you out of it.
If you ever find yourself drawn to reality, you could read up on Lenski's experiment.
Human rate of genetic mutation is much slower, because even if you had some new information (which you don't), you would need a child to give it to. And it would take him 25 years (about) to give it to his offspring.
I've already explained this to you. See my note on mutation rates above.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 8:11 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by dennis780, posted 08-22-2010 12:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

abrown9
Junior Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 8
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 155 of 752 (575954)
08-21-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by dennis780
08-21-2010 8:11 PM


I would argue that it is totally irrelevant whether the mutated organism survives in the wild or reverts to wild type. The environment of the organism exerts selective pressure, directing mutations. It would seem fairly obvious that a WILD environment would exert selective pressure towards the WILD type.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 8:11 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by dennis780, posted 08-22-2010 1:05 PM abrown9 has replied

Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 156 of 752 (575966)
08-22-2010 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 7:20 PM


Can I have some too?
quote:
As for human mutation, as I say, we can measure the mutation rate. The average person has about a hundred mutations not acquired from their parents. And this is demonstrably enough to account for our divergence from chimps in the time available --- I can show you the math if you like.
  —"Dr Adequate"
Forgive me if it's too cheeky to ask, but can you please show the math, just for the rest of us? It's kind of awesome to see how various fields of study mesh together, and these are two of my favourites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 3:07 AM Nij has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 157 of 752 (575968)
08-22-2010 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Nij
08-22-2010 2:52 AM


Re: Can I have some too?
Forgive me if it's too cheeky to ask, but can you please show the math, just for the rest of us? It's kind of awesome to see how various fields of study mesh together, and these are two of my favourites.
Sure. Some math.
It refers you to results proved here, which perhaps you should read first.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 2:52 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 4:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 163 by dennis780, posted 08-22-2010 1:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 158 of 752 (575970)
08-22-2010 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2010 3:07 AM


Mmm, yummy...
Thanks, very good links. Something else to blow holes in the creo ship (yeah, it sunk ages ago, but sometimes they attempt a refloat).
Does that site have much more like this? I often use Wikipedia as intro to stuff, but it gets awful' borin' sometimes. Would be good to have another decent source for stuff.
{abe: how does one 'acknowledge' a post? It seems better than continuing an ungodly chain of messages with little useful content.}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 3:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 5:46 AM Nij has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 159 of 752 (575976)
08-22-2010 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Nij
08-22-2010 4:22 AM


Re: Mmm, yummy...
For varying values of "like this".
Try the genetics textbook, of which these articles form a part. It's quite good, though it should have stuff on transposons and on ERVs.
There are various other articles on Biology; and there's a catalog of creationist arguments.
And I'm writing a geology textbook, but it isn't finished yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 4:22 AM Nij has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 160 of 752 (575997)
08-22-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Macroevolution at work
"The genes being transfered have to come from somewhere"
They do, they come from the E. Cole, either during cell division, or by some sexual process. But the information is taken from within the cell.
"they couldn't have come from resistance already present in the population" And yet, it does.
"So, again - transfer from what?" I already said. From genetic material inside (or possibly outside, but unlikely) the chromosome, usually at a cost to some other process.
"then isn't in an increase in "information" to be rid of it altogether?" No, and no. It takes existing information. And no, it is not rid of it altogether. It is simply (in this case) 10x more resistant to it.
"How mutations can add sequence as well as subtract?" Oh, I must have missed your scientific evidence. Reference please?
"Science is best understood with one's sober mind" Agreed. Now I'd like some references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 8:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 8:33 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 161 of 752 (576003)
08-22-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 9:32 PM


"A DNA sequence or genetic sequence is a succession of letters representing the primary structure of a real or hypothetical DNA molecule or strand, with the capacity to carry information as described by the central dogma of molecular biology."
define:Genetic information - Google Search
I'm running with that.
"And your secret method of measuring information is?" mentioned above. Loss mutations are found in the hundreds, that result in a non-functional genetic sequence, protien, or structure. For example:
The Ancon Sheep - Short legged sheep that couldn't produce enough cartilage, and had smaller legs (but are widely used because it reduces the need for higher fences). beneficial to humans (farmers), but harmful in it's natural environment.
Eyeless fish in the Ozark caves - because there is no light, copying errors that would normally have been an extreme disadvantage in lighted environments, do not affect the organism one way or the other. So eyeless fish (scars where the eyes once where), are not affected by this change. Though copying errors occur of this nature everywhere, the caves' absence of light prevented these fish from being at any sort of disadvantage.
Sickle-cell anemia - which in itself is a disease, but has saved millions of lifes in Africa since Malaria will not attack carriers. Though the disease has negative effects...
There are more examples if you want them. All of these genetic changes are a result of genetic loss.
"And the information in the gene pool has increased." Reference please. I'm not debating your opinions.
"This quotation does not support your original claim." Sure it does. Maybe you misread it. Mutations were almost without exception at a disadvantage. That was my claim.
"And naturally if you select for things other than viability, fertility, and longevity then you are unlikely to increase these and likely to decrease them." So evolution selects with some sort of intelligence certain aspects of an organism to benefit it? I was under the impression that eovlution was random selection...in fact, I'm sure of it. This experiment represents natural evolution. If selection is required by a higher power for evolution of advantageous genes to come about, then doesn't that require a 'God' of some kind?
"A creationist saying something is, if anything, evidence that it isn't true." This is an opinion. Not a fact.
"Again, your point is obscure." Since evolution is random, and so was the majority of this experiment, isn't this a perfect documented experiment to prove that even over a million human years, there cannot be enough advantageous genetic mutations to take us from apes to humans? Or for that matter, any of the species on earth?
"You mean the quote that does not in any way say that they all became sterile?" Hmm, I'm going to guess...you didn't read it. AGAIN:
""The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, FERTILITY, longevity."
"In practice mutants die, are STERILE, or tend to revert to the wild type."
2021, 10
(my caps)
"That depends on what they said. If it was some gibberish about all mutant becoming sterile, then yes." So it doesn't matter if they are right. If they are against evolution, then they are wrong. I get it.
"I've come across Rifkin, and you shouldn't treat a moron as an authority. Unless you want to be wrong." What about you? You refuse to accept my evidence, an ongoing evolutionary experiment for over 100 years. You come up with this response:
Don't trust him...
Hmmm. Well...I'm going to have to, since you have no logical response (yet).
"No you don't. You do have some stuff that creationists made up, but that is not an "experiment" except insofar as it explores the limits of human gullibility." Oh your good. No rebuttal. I like.
"If you ever find yourself drawn to reality, you could read up on Lenski's experiment." I already brought that up in this discussion, as evidence for me. Horizontal gene transfer does not explain the origin of the cells, as well as crippling the organism in some way or another. This reaction is HARMFUL to the organism, other than allowing it to survive in it's present condition or environment (though sometimes the organism does recover, it returns to normal, instead of retaining any new useful genetic information).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:14 PM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 162 of 752 (576005)
08-22-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by abrown9
08-21-2010 9:47 PM


"I would argue that it is totally irrelevant whether the mutated organism survives in the wild or reverts to wild type. The environment of the organism exerts selective pressure, directing mutations. It would seem fairly obvious that a WILD environment would exert selective pressure towards the WILD type.
I would argue that it is totally irrelevant whether the mutated organism survives in the wild or reverts to wild type. The environment of the organism exerts selective pressure, directing mutations. It would seem fairly obvious that a WILD environment would exert selective pressure towards the WILD type."
So evolution works, as long as there is a lab. The entire world is wild, depending on the definition of the word, or context. Natural selection states that animals with any slight advantage can out compete those with less, and spread more genetic material. Animals with genetic mutation should, if evolution is true, at times have a distinct advantage in the wild.
The experiment documents many mutations, including wing changes, hairs on the face, clear eyes, etc. But none of the groups were at an advantage compared to the original fruit flies. Being able to survive in the wild is EXACTLY what is required for evolution to be an accurate theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by abrown9, posted 08-21-2010 9:47 PM abrown9 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by abrown9, posted 08-22-2010 5:44 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:43 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 163 of 752 (576008)
08-22-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2010 3:07 AM


Re: Can I have some too?
"The way to test any theory is to compare its predictions against reality. The results stated above, in conjunction with the fossil record, allow us to predict the amount of genetic difference between two species, where the fossil record is reasonably good."
Page not found – Skeptic Wiki
(your source)
I just wanted to drop in here quick. I find it amusing that evolutionist thinking to check evolution is to compare the fossil record...to the fossil record. Instead of comparing it with any sort of documented observable facts.
Thats it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 3:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 5:36 PM dennis780 has not replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 164 of 752 (576025)
08-22-2010 2:17 PM


On Falsification:
Is falsification meant to disprove an entire theory, or just a fact within a theory?

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 2:23 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 166 by bluescat48, posted 08-22-2010 3:08 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 190 by dennis780, posted 08-27-2010 11:47 PM Tram law has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 165 of 752 (576028)
08-22-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tram law
08-22-2010 2:17 PM


That depends on the specific incident.
For example, if Special Creation was actually observed it would very likely overturn the whole Theory of Evolution.
More likely though is something that leads to a new understanding of the existing science.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tram law, posted 08-22-2010 2:17 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by dennis780, posted 08-27-2010 11:48 PM jar 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