Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
abrown9
Junior Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 8
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 226 of 752 (578020)
08-31-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by dennis780
08-29-2010 11:20 PM


I`m not exactly sure what kind of studies you are hoping (or rather not hoping) we can produce to answer your questions about `gains in information`and beneficial mutations. Do you want to see an experiment that documents the transition of one species to another, carefully documenting each beneficial mutation along the way? If that's the only way we can "win" the debate, then I guess you are in luck because (as far as I know), no such experiments exist.
What do exist, however, are experiments that document mutations that introduce new "information" to the gene pool, and are beneficial. For example, here is an experiment that shows that 12% of mutations occurring in certain E.coli allowed them to metabolize maltose, "a resource novel to the progenitor".
Just a moment...
Now, if we humans obtained a mutation that allowed us to metabolize rocks, SURELY that would be considered "new information" in our genetic pool?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by dennis780, posted 08-29-2010 11:20 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 1:34 AM abrown9 has replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 227 of 752 (578042)
08-31-2010 3:35 PM


What evolutionary purpose does fingernails serve? Are they actually a mutation from claws?
Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 4:27 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 08-31-2010 5:24 PM Tram law has not replied

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


Message 228 of 752 (578051)
08-31-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Tram law
08-31-2010 3:35 PM


Tram law writes:
What evolutionary purpose does fingernails serve? Are they actually a mutation from claws?
The second question first. Yes, they evolved from reptilian claws. As to their purpose, they are thought to have developed to help critters get over and through small branches more quickly, which was useful to the small mammals we descended from. I guess we never lost them because there is no disadvantage to having them, and of course, I suspect they also serve some protective function to the nerves in our fingertips that help us with feeling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Tram law, posted 08-31-2010 3:35 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2010 4:54 PM Huntard has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 229 of 752 (578061)
08-31-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Huntard
08-31-2010 4:27 PM


I suspect they also serve some protective function to the nerves in our fingertips that help us with feeling.
I can attest that this is probably why we still have them. I had a bad nail on my left index finger for over a year. Without the fingernail my finger would feel numb and get injured more than my other index finger. Since my fingernail grew back I no long have numbness in my finger and it does not get as injured.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 4:27 PM Huntard has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 230 of 752 (578078)
08-31-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Tram law
08-31-2010 3:35 PM


Are they actually a mutation from claws?
For humans, yes. But the protein that makes up finger nails is also found in birds and amphibians, along with reptiles and mammals, like Huntard pointed out.
See here:
quote:
Keratin filaments are abundant in keratinocytes in the cornified layer of the epidermis; these are cells which have undergone keratinization.
  • the -keratins in the hair (including wool), horns, nails, claws and hooves of mammals
  • the harder -keratins found in nails and in the scales and claws of reptiles, their shells (chelonians, such as tortoise, turtle, terrapin), and in the feathers, beaks, claws of birds and quills of porcupines. (These keratins are formed primarily in beta sheets. However, beta sheets are also found in -keratins.)
Arthropods such as crustaceans often have parts of their armor or exoskeleton made of keratin, sometimes in combination with chitin.
The baleen plates of filter-feeding whales are made of keratin.
It can be integrated in the chitinophosphatic matter that composes the shell and setae in many brachiopods.
Keratin is also found in the gastrointestinal tracts of many bioforms, including roundworms (which also have outer layers of keratin).
Although it is now difficult to be certain, the scales, claws, some protective armour and the beaks of dinosaurs would, almost certainly, have been composed of keratin
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Tram law, posted 08-31-2010 3:35 PM Tram law has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 231 of 752 (578139)
08-31-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by dennis780
08-31-2010 5:35 AM


Hi, Dennis.
dennis780 writes:
I have no idea who you are, but you have offered no scientific opinion whatsoever.
Well, I won’t deny that. Science is based on a foundation of logic. As such, science can’t happen until the logic is taken care of, and the logic here clearly has not yet been taken care of.
So, let me try my best to point out why nobody likes your answers about measuring genetic information:
If you believe that genetic information or genetic complexity is measured in nucleotides, then am I to understand that the organism with the largest genome (i.e. the most nucleotides) is the most complex, or has the most information?
This is the implication of using nucleotides as metric.
The problem I see immediately is that this does not jive well with your comments in Message 219:
dennis780 writes:
So, you are saying that if random letters are changed in a book to any random letters, eventually, you will have a completely new book with a coherant message?
In this comment, you emphasize the importance of message coherence. So, I assume from this that you think message coherence is somehow important to understanding mutation, genetic complexity and genetic information. (Feel free to correct me if I’ve made a bad assumption here).
Now, I can’t imagine how one might use nucleotides (or chromosomes or teaspoons) to measure message coherence. So, from my point of view, your argument doesn’t seem to be enjoying much internal consistency. I suggest that it is because you haven’t actually formed a coherent idea about what information is, nor about how it relates to genetics, mutation or macroevolution.
-----
Furthermore, there’s this statement from the same message:
dennis780 writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
Does the gain of a plasmid constitute a "genetic loss" --- or a genetic gain?
Genetic gain. Continue.
You have affirmed the existence of HGT, and have now affirmed that it is a genetic gain.
Genetic gain is an increase in information, as measured in nucleotides, and thus, by your definition, is an example of macroevolution.
Yet, you say that it is not macroevolution.
This tells me that you haven’t actually formed a coherent idea about what macroevolution is either, nor about how it relates to genetics, information or mutation.
-----
I hope this at least gives you an idea of why everybody has given you so much pressure over this.
Edited by Bluejay, : "no" should have been "now"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by dennis780, posted 08-31-2010 5:35 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 2:04 AM Blue Jay has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 232 of 752 (578144)
08-31-2010 9:36 PM


In the (unlikely?) event of something profound happening in this topic...
This is a "Free For All" topic with a catch all topic title. As such, I tend to regard it as being a garbage dump topic - A repository of random dubious thoughts not worthy of bothering to monitor.
The reality is probably not nearly that bad. But I have some fear that a truly worthy discussion may happen here, only to be lost in the sludge.
I am suggesting that if indeed such happens, please, someone propose a topic where said discussion can have a proper home with a quality topic title.
That said, this message will now get buried in the sludge, to never have any real and useful function beyond giving me a momentary warm fuzzy feeling that I've tried to do some useful as a moderator.
Or something like that.
Adminnemooseus

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


Message 233 of 752 (578174)
09-01-2010 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dr Adequate
08-31-2010 6:31 AM


quote:
Although this is obviously true, that's not actually what I was saying. Read it again.
I'm going to have to say no. If a blind man typed for a million years (this guy can live forever for this exmaple) on a keyboard, I would doubt that he would even make any more than a few coherant sentences, and short ones at that.
quote:
though we would have to await your definition of "genetic loss".
Incorrectly sequenced nucleotides, or damaged codons should suffice for this discussion. Unless, you prefer using teaspoons again.
quote:
P.S: What's this about horses and split hooves?
Three-toed horses are called hipparions by evolutionists. Evolutionists believe these were ancestors to the modern horse, and creationists believe that horses simply had split hooves, and lost the genetic codes required for that trait, giving a single hoof.
It is irrelevant who is correct, since we all agree that horses in the past did not have a single hoof.
quote:
Yeah, being right sometimes involves work.
You're preaching to the choir here Doc. I'm working my bag off over here. I put up one post, and have to respond to 5 people. Which begs the question, am I the only ID supporter around? Does anyone know of specific users that are ID's?
quote:
if gaining these genes through lateral gene transfer is "genetic gain", is it not also "genetic gain" when they originally arise through mutation?
You have not shown that new genes can arise through random mutation. But if you prove this, then yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2010 6:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 3:21 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 234 of 752 (578176)
09-01-2010 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by abrown9
08-31-2010 2:11 PM


quote:
an experiment that shows that 12% of mutations occurring in certain E.coli allowed them to metabolize maltose
Brown, we have already discussed the E. Coli experiments, and this is not an example of random mutation. The cell wall elongation it caused (among other things), which is detrimental in other environments--basically handicapped the bacteria, and their fitness level dropped. This is called ecological specialization, and is not support for random mutation.
quote:
Now, if we humans obtained a mutation that allowed us to metabolize rocks, SURELY that would be considered "new information" in our genetic pool?
Humans would have been able to eat small rocks in the past (though it wouldn't have provided any nutritional value). The appendix provides a pouch off the main intestinal tract, in which cellulose can be trapped and be subjected to prolonged digestion. Though in humans, the appendix is shrinking, in the past it would have produced cellulose strong enough to eat raw meat, and quite easily digest small rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by abrown9, posted 08-31-2010 2:11 PM abrown9 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 3:26 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 257 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2010 10:55 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 265 by abrown9, posted 09-02-2010 2:20 PM dennis780 has not replied

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


Message 235 of 752 (578178)
09-01-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Blue Jay
08-31-2010 9:01 PM


quote:
Science is based on a foundation of logic.
High five!
quote:
is the most complex, or has the most information?
No. It's not about who has the most. More for me, more for me. Complexity of chemical arrangements is also a factor. As well, many organisms (including humans) have alot of 'junk' DNA that codes for nothing. This is also a factor (among other things).
quote:
In this comment, you emphasize the importance of message coherence.
No, in this comment, I compare the chemical arrangements of nucleotides to words in a book. The doc and I are on this because I quoted a scientist earlier on that compared the information found in DNA to be different from that of specific chemical arrangements, much like the words in a book. If you want to jump into our posts, I'm diggity, but read back a bit so you are up to speed on whats going on.
quote:
You have affirmed the existence of HGT, and have now affirmed that it is a genetic gain.
Yeeeess. And this genetic change comes at a cost to the organism, and also is not evidence for random mutation, but for antibiotic resistance. But there is genetic change, and new information is present. Dr. Adequate has a good point. Although I am not convinced the entire spectrum of organic life came from antibiotic resistance (HGT), it is still a valid point. Mooving on.
quote:
Yet, you say that it is not macroevolution.
HGT is not the explanation for random mutation, since this change is not random. As well, for HGT to explain the origin of life, we must believe that evolution created horizontal gene transfer, which in itself required various complex mechanisms, for which you would need to explain the origin of.
quote:
This tells me that you haven’t actually formed a coherent idea about what macroevolution is either, nor about how it relates to genetics
Hey, you are the evolutionist. If it's HGT you want, go at it big rigger. Argue the point. No one here has offered any reasonable explanation to the origin of complex structures, HGT included. Thats your job. Mine is to make you look dumb....like right now. You only one here that is refusing to respond with any sort of intelligence. Even the new guys have scientific sources.
If you want to voice opinions on my beliefs, send me a private message. This is a science driven thread, and if I state something that is unscientific, or not supported by evidence, feel free to respond.
quote:
I hope this at least gives you an idea of why everybody has given you so much pressure over this.
Everyone else, crashfrog, Dr. adequate, Abrown etc. all are giving me pressure because our VIEWPOINTS DIFFER. And that is perfectly logical. If your next message is you spewing random opinions on my beliefs, you can sleep at night knowing that it will be untouched.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Blue Jay, posted 08-31-2010 9:01 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2010 11:11 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 236 of 752 (578187)
09-01-2010 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by dennis780
09-01-2010 1:13 AM


I'm going to have to say no.
To reading what I wrote again until you understand it, or to the bleedin' obvious proposition that I did not in fact mention?
Incorrectly sequenced nucleotides, or damaged codons should suffice for this discussion.
Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how?
Evolutionists believe these were ancestors to the modern horse, and creationists believe that horses simply had split hooves, and lost the genetic codes required for that trait, giving a single hoof.
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're preaching to the choir here Doc. I'm working my bag off over here. I put up one post, and have to respond to 5 people.
You may be working, but I'm not convinced you're trying to be right.
You have not shown that new genes can arise through random mutation. But if you prove this, then yes.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 1:13 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 4:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 237 of 752 (578188)
09-01-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by dennis780
09-01-2010 1:34 AM


Though in humans, the appendix is shrinking, in the past it would have produced cellulose strong enough to eat raw meat, and quite easily digest small rocks.
Against stiff competition, that's the funniest thing I've read all week.
Brown, we have already discussed the E. Coli experiments, and this is not an example of random mutation. The cell wall elongation it caused (among other things), which is detrimental in other environments--basically handicapped the bacteria, and their fitness level dropped. This is called ecological specialization, and is not support for random mutation.
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 1:34 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 4:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 238 of 752 (578199)
09-01-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Dr Adequate
09-01-2010 3:21 AM


quote:
Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how?
By the ultimate sliver teaspoon. hahahha. During RNA translation, an incorrectly placed stop codon that prematurely terminates the message, errors during transcription, teaspoon taps frameshifts, intron removal errors, etc.
quote:
Can you find any of these cloven-hooved horses in the fossil record? Only we have plenty of three-toed ones.
No, because I never once claimed cloven hooved. I said split. Which is true. The third 'toe' was on the side, and shrank over time, while the two split toes remained functional.
quote:
A line of "true equines" in which the side toes sometimes began to decrease in size.
Horse Evolution
quote:
In the case of antibiotic resistance, I believe we did.
Oh good, so disease, and harmful environments caused all of life. Thats nice. I don't suppose you have any evidence for this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 3:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 4:46 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 239 of 752 (578201)
09-01-2010 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dr Adequate
09-01-2010 3:26 AM


quote:
Against stiff competition, that's the funniest thing I've read all week.
You know what is even funnier than that??? Using your websites to prove you wrong. HAHAhahahahhaha.
quote:
The human appendix has lost a major and previously essential function, namely cellulose digestion. Though during primate evolution it has decreased in size to a mere rudiment, the appendix retains a structure that was originally specifically adapted for housing bacteria and extending the time course of digestion.
Vestigiality of the human appendix
quote:
Or "handicapped"?
Handicapped - One who makes jokes for alternative viewpoints, but first does not check his/her own resources to see if he will look stupid. Handicapped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 3:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 4:41 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 240 of 752 (578204)
09-01-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by dennis780
09-01-2010 4:23 AM


You know what is even funnier than that??? Using your websites to prove you wrong. HAHAhahahahhaha.
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.
Handicapped - One who makes jokes for alternative viewpoints, but first does not check his/her own resources to see if he will look stupid. Handicapped.
You said it.
Sometimes I think creationism is not so much an ideology as a cognitive disorder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 4:23 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 5:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024