Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

As you admit that this is what I have said, why did you begin this paragraph with the word "no" rather than the word "yes"? That is not the definition of evolution. Please tell us how to measure the complexity of an organism.(The answer to your question will be "yes" so long as your measure gives different quantities for different organisms, but obviously I cannot give specific examples unless I know what that measure is.)

No. By definition (unless the mutation has occurred previously in the gene pool and is still there) it is new information. Because what DNA contains is information, and because it is new.Writing meaningless sentences will not make this fact go away any more than shouting abracadabra will. In short, the result of a mutation. Nonsense. Asexual species are not all clones of each other. Mutation. In a single individual, yes.And your point would be? If by "useless" you mean no more or less useful than the original information, then you may actually have written something true, though you would in that case have expressed it appallingly badly.

But this is trivial. Mutations include substitutions, insertions, deletions, and the fusing and fission of chromosomes.These alone are sufficient to turn any given genome into any other; just as adding and removing and altering enough letter will turn any book into any other book.Indeed, there are (literally) an infinite number of sequences of mutations which will get you from any genome to any other genome. A claim which is not "documented", nor indeed well-defined. Physical example would also include evidence of new useful genetic information from genetic mutations. Stop cherry-picking reality.---A quetion for you. You admit that antibiotic resistance can be transmitted through plasmids. Now, tell us, is there a negative quantity of DNA contained in these plasmids? Does the gain of a plasmid constitute a "genetic loss" --- or a genetic gain?So when the resistance originally arises by mutation, what is that?

Although this is obviously true, that's not actually what I was saying. Read it again. You seemed to be making a general assertion --- that beneficial mutations were always associated with genetic loss. If you only claim that this is sometimes the case, then this may well be true --- though we would have to await your definition of "genetic loss".P.S: What's this about horses and split hooves? Yeah, being right sometimes involves work. I did continue. I asked --- if gaining these genes through lateral gene transfer is "genetic gain", is it not also "genetic gain" when they originally arise through mutation?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To reading what I wrote again until you understand it, or to the bleedin' obvious proposition that I did not in fact mention? Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how? They do? I'd not heard that one before.Can you find any of these cloven-hooved horses in the fossil record? Only we have plenty of three-toed ones. You may be working, but I'm not convinced you're trying to be right. In the case of antibiotic resistance, I believe we did. You just have to do the experiment starting with a clonal line. Since they all start off without resistance, it has to arise through mutation before there can be any possibility of transfer. You can't transfer what isn't there.This renders your bibble about HGT in post 235 moot.

Against stiff competition, that's the funniest thing I've read all week. Though this approaches it for sheer glorious mental confusion.Do you know what a "mutation" is? Or what "fitness" means, if it comes to that?Or "handicapped"?

And in the alternate universe that you seem to inhabit, that would indeed be funny.Back in the real world, what is funny is that you seem to think that a website that says that the appendix used to digest cellulose is actually supporting your claims:* That the appendix used to produce cellulose.
* That cellulose digests things.
* That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks. You said it.Sometimes I think creationism is not so much an ideology as a cognitive disorder.

To the extent that this is written in English, you seem to be calling all mutations "genetic loss".Well, I suppose the sequence of mutations from monkey to man (for example) lost the genes for being a monkey as such. But it seems to me that something was gained also. Split and cloven are synonyms.If creationists have their own version of the evolution of the horse, perhaps you could link me to someone moderately coherent explaining it. Of course, I said nothing of the sort, and you are unlikely to deceive anyone by pretending that I did.

That's another website saying that the function of the appendix is to digest cellulose.It does not say:* That the appendix used to produce cellulose.
* That cellulose digests things.
* That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks. Quite so. It is to digest cellulose. It is not to "produce" cellulose that is "strong enough" to "easily digest small rocks".What was your definition of "handicapped" again?

Ah, creationist dialectic at its finest.Since you include "transcription errors" in your list of things that constitute "genetic loss", aren't you claiming that all mutations (except perhaps chromosome fission and fusion) constitute "genetic loss", whatever their result? Or "mutation" as it is more concisely known. But not what you meant. You are still not communicating to me what you think creationists think the limbs of the ancestors of modern horse looked like, and how this differs from the opinion of people who have looked at the limbs of the ancestors of modern horses. And you will find it in my posts.If there's something in there you don't understand, maybe you could ask me about it instead of making up gibberish in your head and pretending that it is my opinion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then let me remind you.In post 234 you wrote: And when I quoted this, and pointed out that this was not true, you called me "handicapped".It would therefore seem to be your "point", such as it is:* That the appendix used to produce cellulose.
* That cellulose digests things.
* That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks.
* That anyone who disagrees with you about this is handicapped.

Yeah. You see now why you should listen to the nice evolutionists?

But in post 233, you said that this genetic damage and incorrect sequencing was the very definition of "genetic loss". Got that? You say that "errors during transcription" constitute incorrectness and/or damage, and that this incorrectness and damage is the very definition of "genetic loss".Therefore, you are saying that errors during transcription constitute genetic loss. No. To recap.You agreed that antibiotic resistance acquired through HGT of plasmids constitutes a "genetic gain" (post 219).You further, when pressed, agreed that if antibiotic resistance was also acquired through mutation, that would also have to be counted as a "genetic gain" (message 233).I then pointed out that by doing experiments with clonal lines, we can demonstrate that such resistance does arise by mutation without HGT being implicated or indeed possible.Unless you wish to go back on your own admissions, or dispute the experimental results, you must now admit that some mutations produce "genetic gain".---I still don't know what you think about horses, but as you say it is hardly relevant.

I had the impression that you were saying that all transcription errors were genetic loss. If you just mean those that cause a gene to cease functioning, that would be quite reasonable. No, it's just a way of passing it around. But you said that HGT of antibiotic resistance was a "genetic gain". I couldn't be bothered to look through the thread, so I googled for another one. This was done on a clonal line of yeast. References are: Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.

​

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265.The experiments are described here. Note the twist at the end (after 800 generations) --- I think it's amusing: Now, as you can see, they started with a single individual --- just one cell of yeast. Hence there is no possibility of the relevant genes merely being passed around by HGT before arising by mutation.

And if the selective conditions for humans being smart were removed, our species would become as dumb as monkeys.That's evolution for you. Mu-ta-tion. Sheesh. Whereas mutation does. We are discussing it when we're talking about mutation, we're not discussing it when we're talking about HGT. Hello?The improvement in the molecule was not present in the original cell. It arose through mutation.By the way, if you know what "the ID theory" is, perhaps you could explain it to all the ID proponents out there. According to you, "genetic loss" is when a gene stops working. The gene did not stop working. Unlike the other three beneficial changes. These changes to the DNA are demonstrably caused by mutation and not HGT.