Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 271 of 752 (578876)
09-02-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Adequate
09-02-2010 6:21 AM


quote:
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 as I said before I agree with you that HGT can bring about new genetic information in an organism. But the information used must have a source. As well, when the selective conditions are removed, the genetic information (that was horizontally transferred) becomes redundant and is eventually discarded by the cells to enable them to survive among the faster-growing "wild-type" bacteria. Between the negative effects that usually occur, and the information being discarded (as well as the the source of information not having an explanation), HGT doesn't seem to be a plausible fit to origin of, or tool for, new complex chemical arrangements in DNA.
quote:
No, it's just a way of passing it around.
We are agreeing too much...somethings wrong. I feel a trap.
So then, are we not discussing the origin of new genetic material? What is the topic??
quote:
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.
In the example you gave:
quote:
better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule.
This does not conflict with the ID theory. The new pathway would still be based on existing pathway DNA. Generations over time did not "evolve" the permease pathway over time. It existed in the original cell.
quote:
occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase
This example does not tell us whether the mutation was due to genetic loss or gain, so I really don't know how to comment.
quote:
Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase.
Existing information.
I'm still unclear as to whether or not we are debating the origin of DNA or not...or if mutations can result in new information. Because I have already conceded that this is possible, but that HGT is not it, since it does not explain the origin of the information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2010 6:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2010 11:12 PM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 272 of 752 (578877)
09-02-2010 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Theodoric
09-01-2010 11:05 AM


Re: What the hell is this crap?
quote:
shut your fucking mouth.
I'm typing you moron. My mouth IS shut.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2010 11:05 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 273 of 752 (578882)
09-02-2010 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by dennis780
09-01-2010 5:48 AM


dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
quote:
Are adopted people particularly stupid?
Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.
Still waiting for those statistics.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 5:48 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by dennis780, posted 09-02-2010 11:12 PM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 274 of 752 (578883)
09-02-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Blue Jay
09-01-2010 11:11 AM


Bluejay,
I'll pick through and answer your logical questions. I don't take anything personally. Your message had no evidences to refute mine, just opinions. How do you expect me to respond to an opinion?
quote:
think that the arrangement of nucleotides is part of the definition of genetic information?
Absolutely. Any genetic DNA rendering sequences of nucleotides that do not produce any useful substance cannot be counted as DNA that has specific and verifiable purpose, and therefore offers no increased overall useful information to the organism. This 'junk' DNA, cannot included in an organisms overall complexity, since it offers nothing to it.
quote:
I really don’t like offending or irritating people.
Well, you are bad at it, lol.
quote:
If you do include arrangement of nucleotides in your definition of "information," how do you measure the arrangement
Which I do, as explained above. I'm not a geneticist, so I would not know how it is measured. I do know that only specific nucleotide arrangements and codons produce useful information.
quote:
imply that HGT is how it all went down, as you have been doing.
hahaha, I'm not implying that HGT is how it 'all went down'. I'm arguing against the point...if you haven't noticed yet, read my response to the Doc.
Which evidence was yours? I thought I was hitting them all, if I missed yours, repost the source please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2010 11:11 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2010 1:12 PM dennis780 has not replied

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


Message 275 of 752 (578886)
09-02-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Theodoric
09-02-2010 10:56 PM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
quote:
Still waiting for those statistics.
Np.
Heres a study done in the UK:
Just a moment...
Need more? Okay:
quote:
In the 1980s, adoptees who exhibited "Attachment Disorder" were further categorized as a "sub-set spectrum" of adoptees who, to varying degrees, exhibit eight specific antisocial Adopted Child Syndrome (ACS) behaviors -- according to noted psychologists, Kirschner, Sorosky, Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, Work, Goodman, Silverstein, Mandell, Menlove, Simon, Senturia, Offord, Aponti, Cross and others. However the "spectrum" is never defined, so it is argued that all adoptees are at risk due to the complexities of adoptees' dual identities and secret pasts. Although Brazelton referred to ACS as "malarkey" in the press, psychiatrist David Cooke said "Adopted Child Syndrome is simply a new name for a phenomenon that has been observed since the 1950's" (by Paton). The ACS behaviors most commonly referred to are:
-conflict with authority (for example truancy);
-preoccupation with excessive fantasy;
-pathological lying;
-stealing;
-running away (from home, school, group homes, situations);
-learning difficulties, under-achievement, over-achievement;
-lack of impulse control (acting out, promiscuity, sex crimes);
-fascination with fire, fire-setting
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY
Hense the expression: Were you adopted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Theodoric, posted 09-02-2010 10:56 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 09-02-2010 11:26 PM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 276 of 752 (578887)
09-02-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by dennis780
09-02-2010 10:39 PM


No as I said before I agree with you that HGT can bring about new genetic information in an organism. But the information used must have a source. As well, when the selective conditions are removed, the genetic information (that was horizontally transferred) becomes redundant and is eventually discarded by the cells to enable them to survive among the faster-growing "wild-type" bacteria.
And if the selective conditions for humans being smart were removed, our species would become as dumb as monkeys.
That's evolution for you.
Between the negative effects that usually occur, and the information being discarded (as well as the the source of information not having an explanation) ...
Mu-ta-tion. Sheesh.
, HGT doesn't seem to be a plausible fit to origin of, or tool for, new complex chemical arrangements in DNA.
Whereas mutation does.
So then, are we not discussing the origin of new genetic material?
We are discussing it when we're talking about mutation, we're not discussing it when we're talking about HGT.
This does not conflict with the ID theory. The new pathway would still be based on existing pathway DNA. Generations over time did not "evolve" the permease pathway over time. It existed in the original cell.
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.
This example does not tell us whether the mutation was due to genetic loss or gain, so I really don't know how to comment.
According to you, "genetic loss" is when a gene stops working. The gene did not stop working.
Existing information.
Unlike the other three beneficial changes.
I'm still unclear as to whether or not we are debating the origin of DNA or not...or if mutations can result in new information. Because I have already conceded that this is possible, but that HGT is not it, since it does not explain the origin of the information.
These changes to the DNA are demonstrably caused by mutation and not HGT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by dennis780, posted 09-02-2010 10:39 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by dennis780, posted 09-03-2010 7:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 277 of 752 (578890)
09-02-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by dennis780
09-02-2010 11:12 PM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
Nothing in the abstract of the first says anything about adoptees in comparison to the general public. It is a study of specific adopted people.
In the second I see no statistics or evidence for adoptees being more prone to anything than the general population. I realize there is a thing as ACS, but you have provided nothing showing adoptees are less intelligent or more likely to be incarcerated as you asserted earlier. I am not saying you are wrong, I just want evidence. So still waiting for the statistics
Hense the expression: Were you adopted?
Never heard the expression before. It is very insulting to adopted people. Might get your ass kicked someday if you say it to the wrong person.
P.S.
The word is spelled Hence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by dennis780, posted 09-02-2010 11:12 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by dennis780, posted 09-03-2010 8:15 AM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 278 of 752 (578954)
09-03-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Dr Adequate
09-02-2010 11:12 PM


quote:
And if the selective conditions for humans being smart were removed, our species would become as dumb as monkeys.
This is only correct if human intelligence was aquired through HGT, which, it was not.
quote:
Whereas mutation does.
And once you prove that, we will move on.
quote:
We are discussing it when we're talking about mutation
Okay, then lets discard HGT for the moment, and discuss your evidence for genetic mutation strictly.
quote:
The improvement in the molecule was not present in the original cell. It arose through mutation.
Mutation of existing information, be it positive or negative is a good example of microevolution. But you have not shown that these mutations resulted in new, or more complex DNA sequences.
quote:
According to you, "genetic loss" is when a gene stops working. The gene did not stop working.
No, I said genetic loss can result in useless information. But though some information can be lost, other systems may benefit from this. If the benefit outweighs the harm, then the loss-mutation is beneficial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2010 11:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2010 8:30 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 279 of 752 (578966)
09-03-2010 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Theodoric
09-02-2010 11:26 PM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
quote:
Might get your ass kicked someday
Something tells me that is not likely. I work in the oilfield. We don't get offended by anything. We don't suffer from diseases, we're happy with them. My nickname for the first year I worked out here was pissed infected cumbubble (pic for short). Being called adopted would be like eating a Kit Kat. A nice break.
quote:
Nothing in the abstract of the first says anything about adoptees in comparison to the general public.
Oh. I didn't realize that having a disease specifically for adopted people was enough...one sec.
quote:
It has long been documented that former foster kids are overrepresented in America's prisons....Example: "69% on inmates in California State Prisons were former foster children; 60% in Massachusetts were foster children" according to testimony on the Congressional Record. The same appears to be true of adoptees.... Example: According to FBI stats: "16% of 500 serial killers are adoptees." Freedom of Information/Privacy Act — FBI and according to Dr. Mike Aamodt, Radford University, "14% of 225 serial killers are adoptees."
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY
Specifically to your prisoner point.
And specifically to your school dropout point:
quote:
Parents thinking about getting divorced, especially for the second or third time, should consider the impact of that decision on their children's schooling, new research from University of Alberta suggests.
The groundbreaking study -- believed to the first in Canada to look at the long-term impacts of household upheaval on academic success -- found children who experience changes to their family structure are much more likely to become high school dropouts than classmates whose parents stay together.
The findings were particularly grim for children who live through three or more parental changes: divorce or death, remarriage or another divorce. Such children have just a 40-per-cent chance of completing their high school diplomas, a success rate half that of children with no family shakeup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 09-02-2010 11:26 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2010 8:58 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 280 of 752 (578970)
09-03-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by dennis780
09-03-2010 7:48 AM


This is only correct if human intelligence was aquired through HGT, which, it was not.
What can I say but "no it doesn't"?
To get back to our bacteria, they revert to the wild type in the absence of antibiotics whether the genes are on a plasmid passed around by HGT or whether the genes are on the main chromosome and were not acquired by HGT.
And once you prove that, we will move on.
I believe I have, the penny just hasn't dropped yet.
Okay, then lets discard HGT for the moment, and discuss your evidence for genetic mutation strictly.
Splendid, let's.
Mutation of existing information, be it positive or negative is a good example of microevolution. But you have not shown that these mutations resulted in new, or more complex DNA sequences.
Of course they were new. Because of them not existing in the original strain and then existing after the mutation. That's what "new" means. Heck, that's what "mutation" means.
No, I said genetic loss can result in useless information.
You wrote, and I quote: "Genetic loss would be any sequence of dna that has been changed in any way that renders chemically useless nucleotide arrangements."
The specific mutations we're discussing didn't produce chemically useless nucleotide arrangements. Hence they are not genetic loss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by dennis780, posted 09-03-2010 7:48 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by dennis780, posted 09-05-2010 11:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 281 of 752 (578981)
09-03-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by dennis780
09-03-2010 8:15 AM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
Again you provide nothing that says people that are adopted are more prone to, as I quote you.
Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.
Your first attempt.
Foster children are not adopted children. They are totally different things. Foster children are foster children because they are not adopted. They tend not to be adopted because the birth parents are still usually involved to some point. You might want to do some basic research on the difference.
Nothing in your second quoted item says anything about adoption either. Divorce rarely leads to an adoption. Also please provide a link to this reference. I think the basic findings of this study may be being misinterpreted, It is not the divorce that is the cause of the issue probably as much as the people that are the parents. I would really like to see the whole study.
So, lets review.
Your original premise about adopted people was.
Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.
Evidence to support this assertion so far.
None.
Oh, and you agree with the subtitle? You don't seem to have any problem with it.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by dennis780, posted 09-03-2010 8:15 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 12:01 AM Theodoric has replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 282 of 752 (578988)
09-03-2010 9:23 AM


What's the problem?
I'm genuinely mystified as to what Dennis' problem is.
Surely he must concede that e.g. point mutations *exist* and are random (which can be demonstrated). Then it is common sense that sufficient pile-up of random mutations is capable of transforming any sequence of DNA into any other conceivable sequence, which would include functional genes.
Here's a scenario: at the start a mutation duplicates a functional gene. The offspring is viable. Now random mutations start to strike. If one strikes the first copy and cripples it, and another strikes the second copy and cripples it: dead, no offspring, end of line. If one strikes the first copy and cripples it, but none strike the second (and vice-versa), or the mutation turns out neutral, then there are no consequences for procreation but a first step is taken in the transformation of a gene to a possible other functional.
Considering the inconceivable amount of offspring that a bacteria can produce in just days or weeks, there will always be a sufficient amount of viable varieties coming out of the filter of natural selection (with a spare duplicate dysfunctional gene waiting there as target for yet more mutations). In the end millions or billions of permutations will be tested in the copy of the gene that became crippled without consequences. At some point one can expect that something functional arises. And even if not, there are no consequences either. At any moment the genome can contain tens of thousands of such "laboratories" that do nothing - either positive or negative - for the time being.
From a distance, the net result of these mechanisms looks a lot like directed design. But that's only because the "backoffice" activity remains completely hidden unless specifically monitored.
The key to grasping this, is understanding that a typical living being happens to be... DEAD. What we see, the survivors, is only the top of a giant iceberg of failed natural experiments. It's a numbers game in which all but a minority fail. But the failures remain largely hidden since they don't live, and since the living are more than sufficient to quickly fill the entire available niche anyway (calculate the evolution of an unimpeded elephant population to get a nice illustration: in just a couple of thousands of years they will cover the entire solar system with elephant dung).
Design is produced by randomly shotgunning mutations in combination with huge numbers of trails, and there's nothing magic about it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 12:51 AM Annafan has replied

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


Message 283 of 752 (579052)
09-03-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by dennis780
09-02-2010 10:57 PM


Hi, Dennis.
dennis780 writes:
Your message had no evidences to refute mine, just opinions. How do you expect me to respond to an opinion?
By either demonstrating that my opinion is inaccurate or by agreeing with it. That’s what debate is, Dennis.
But, I’m somewhat perturbed by your characterization of my posts. As far as I can tell, I presented a paper in my first post that contained strong evidence for mutation as the source of new genetic information (Hallett and Maxwell 1991*), and no real evidence has been presented by either one of us since then.
* Note: this links to the abstract; you may need a subscription to see the full text
That paper is my evidence that refutes your argument. You can check out my arguments and explanations associated with that paper in Message 139 and Message 167.
-----
dennis780 writes:
Bluejay writes:
think that the arrangement of nucleotides is part of the definition of genetic information?
Absolutely...
...I'm not a geneticist, so I would not know how it is measured. I do know that only specific nucleotide arrangements and codons produce useful information.
Excellent. I’m not a geneticist either, so let’s see if we can do it without actually having to measure information content or usefulness.
Let’s just work with a strict all-or-nothing dichotomy: let’s assume that information content is either 1 (has useful information) or 0 (has no useful information), with no possible in-between values.
What we need now is a way to tell which specific nucleotide arrangements produce useful information, and which don’t. Once we can do that, we can then proceed to determine whether those information-containing sequences can come about by random mutation.
However, I don’t think there is a way to tell whether or not a given DNA sequence contains any useful information. The only way to tell would be context-specific (i.e. how the given sequence interacts with the other molecules that are involved in realizing its function), which really isn’t all that helpful.
Edited by Bluejay, : Corrected verb ending.
Edited by Bluejay, : "et's" to "Let's"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by dennis780, posted 09-02-2010 10:57 PM dennis780 has not replied

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


Message 284 of 752 (579769)
09-05-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Dr Adequate
09-03-2010 8:30 AM


quote:
Of course they were new.
In a way, you are right. But the origin of the 'new' information is from existing information, for which no source has been explained.
quote:
I believe I have, the penny just hasn't dropped yet.
I don't think you even have a penny in your pocket. You have shown that HGT COULD explain how mutation is passed around, though this is questionable, and to the side for the moment. You have not explained how new chemical arrangements come about by random chance, or mutation.
quote:
Heck, that's what "mutation" means.
Mutation is the damage, or alteration of the genetic 'message' carried by any gene. This does not offer evidence for the origin of new chemical arrangements. They are also not new. They are changed. If I buy a car, then sell it without tires, is the car new? No, it is missing a specific part for it to function properly.
quote:
The specific mutations we're discussing didn't produce chemically useless nucleotide arrangements. Hence they are not genetic loss.
First, you have not shown that. Second, though a specific sequence of nucleotides can be damaged, the gene as a whole can still function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2010 8:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Coyote, posted 09-05-2010 11:58 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 290 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 1:16 AM dennis780 has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 285 of 752 (579771)
09-05-2010 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by dennis780
09-05-2010 11:46 PM


The fall again?
It sounds like you believe in the myth of "the fall," where there can't be any improvement in the genome--only degredation due to "sin."
Sorry, but that is not reflected in real world evidence.
The idea that humans are born sinful or wicked is itself about the most evil idea that has ever come from the fevered minds of shamans in all of human history.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by dennis780, posted 09-05-2010 11:46 PM dennis780 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