Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

quote:

---

Do you agree that all modern domestic dogs are descended of wolfs? If so, does this mean that these ancestral wolfs had all the genetic information necessary to make all domestic dog breeds?

---

quote:

---

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food, fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, as the intentional cross-breeding of dogs continues, to create the so called "designer dogs".
Domestication of the dog - Wikipedia

---

Yes. I do.

quote:

---

Oetzi

---

No. I am not at all. Can you offer my a source to read up on it?

Ok. Would you mind explaining then why those ancestral wolves didn't have the dachshunds short legs? Since those are caused by a dominant allele, which means that if a creature has this allele, it will have short legs. Since the ancestor wolves didn't have those legs, they couldn't have all the genetic information needed to make all dogbreeds we see today. Therefore, this allele is an addition to the DNA.

quote:

---

The same thing that causes mutations of nucleotides 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11, etc.

---

Not frameshift mutations.

quote:

---

Mutations do not have the kind of specificity to attack the first and second base of a codon but ignore the third.

---

Yes, frameshift mutations do this specifically.

quote:

---

you're aware that frameshift mutations are cyclic, right?

---

No, but I can't find any information online that says they are, can you provide a link, so I can read it?

quote:

---

add another two to return to the original reading frame

---

OH, I see. you are saying after three frameshifts, the mutation returns to the original sequence?? That doesn't make any sense. And you are only bringing up one form of frameshift mutation.The car was red. The red car had one key. TAGFor my examples sake, I am using words that make sense to us, and using just one of the different stop codons (DNA amber).Insertion Frameshift 1 (occurs at H in first the)The car was red. Tth ere dca rha don eke yth eTA GInsertion Frameshift 2 (occurs at C in car, stop codon TAG used)The jca rwa sre. dTt her edc arh ado nek eyt heT AGTo things to notice, that the mutations caused the loss of information, as well as altering the stop codon. If we took one more step, the stop codon would be functional again, but the message is still useless.I hope this was what you meant by cyclic. I also only used insertion framshifts, since using both deletion and insertion could result in a nearly infinite amount of possibilities (though more than likely, the information contained would contain no functional purpose).

quote:

---

I mean, surely you wouldn't pop up here and not know what you were talking about, right?

---

Please show me an example of a sequence of frameshift mutations that produce new functional information randomly. You cannot select for certain letters, since the new chain of nucleotides would then have been designed. Hope your keyboard is new.

quote:

---

Yet, if you have a dozen people each roll two dice a hundred times and chart the results

---

If the total sequences of genetic information equalled twelve, or close to it, you would be correct. Give 100 people 3 million dice, then let them roll them a hundred times. The likelyhood of 2 people having 2,453,564 is next to impossible. Since human, or for that matter most any organisms' genome is not as simple as 12, this is a poor example. 3 million is also a fair number, since humans have much more than this, but I am low balling (since I don't know how many base pairs the organism in question actually has).

quote:

---

That means that populations of living organisms come to be dominated by the individuals who had mutations that increased, not decreased their fitness - they are, after all, the only ones left.

---

I'm on your side there.

quote:

---

The source is the same as new nonfunctional genetic code - random mutation. Since mutations are random they produce a mix of functional and nonfunctional new genetic code. Natural selection serves to weed out nonfunctional genetic changes from functional ones.

---

Oh, thats a relief. So you know of thousands of documented cases of this right? New random mutation of functional DNA sequences. Because for evolution to be true, there should be BILLIONS of examples. But since science has not always known about DNA (originally in 1869), it's fair to say that since then, there would have been many research projects to support random mutation of new functional genetic information, correct?

quote:

---

The evidence for this is ample, has been given to you already, and was either not understood by you or simply ignored.

---

Thus far I have 4 cases of mutation, two of which are antibiotic resistance, which is not random. One case of HGT, which is not the source, but the method of passing mutation, and one case where two labs performed the same experiment and got similar results, pointing to the fact that this was more than likely not random, but the organisms adaptability to specific conditions (and no sources were quoted that stated the changes were the result of additional or deleterious mutation, of which I did ask for).But why aren't there hundreds? Shouldn't one be able to google it and find thousands of good examples? Because I did. I found many examples of mutation causing disease, and how loss mutation is repaired.

quote:

---

Since those are caused by a dominant allele

---

Dogs with short legs did not inherit them from wolves. They got a disease similar to the one that causes dwarfism in mice.

quote:

---

Since the ancestor wolves didn't have those legs

---

That neither of us can say. But even if a wolf did get this disease, it's fair to say in the wild, it would be at an extreme disadvantage, so it and it's line would have more than likely died.

quote:

---

Therefore, this allele is an addition to the DNA.

---

Again, dwarfism is a birth defect, that is passed on in Alleles, which perfectly explains short legged dogs.

quote:

---

Each micro takes the individual farther from the original.

---

yes.

quote:

---

Eventually the message hardly resembles the original.

---

And it's meaningless.I get what you are trying to say. I follow. I'm just saying there is not evidence to support the claim that these small changes increase complexity, or add new functional genetic information. But there are hundreds of examples of genetic loss, that are both beneficial and detrimental to the organism.

quote:

---

Nonsense!

---

Prove it. Thats what you are here for.

quote:

---

And belief has nothing to do with science.

---

Nor does evolution.

quote:

---

Science deals with evidence.

---

For which there is none for macro evolution.

quote:

---

belief gets in the way of learning

---

This has nothing to do with lack of evidence, since there is plenty of evidence for ID. Both of us are debating because we have bias opinions on how we believe the earth came into existance. Anyone that tells you they are completely unbias is lying...don't lend him your car.

quote:

---

No, all information does not need an ultimate source; each individual gets his "information" from his parents.

---

Where did they get it from?

quote:

---

You seem to want some miraculous change

---

Macro evolution is a miraculous change. That is what we are talking about.

quote:

---

all at once or something, giving instant "new functional genetic information."

---

No one has offered evidence that this takes place over time either.

You can start by reading this thread called "Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found".If the Genesis 2 myth were true then Oetzi would have been alive at the time of Adam, likely a grandson or so.The important thing about Oetzi is that not only did we get samples of his genetic makeup, he was covered in pollen, had blood from four other humans on him, had plants and shrooms and arrows and axe handles and his clothes and shoes and we could even tell what he had eaten and when he had eaten it.Oetzi gave us an enormous amount of genetic information about plants and critters and people, all from the time Adam would have been alive.And guess what?The genetic information shows us that the critters and plants and people then did NOT have "all the genes necessary to explain the variety of life we see around us". In fact, the genes were almost identical to what exists today, a sub-group as opposed to a super-group. Edited by jar, : get rid of stray smilies

---

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

This means that unlike your previous statements, you now admit that addition can be made to DNA. Yes we can. No remains of shortlegged wolves were fouhnd. The fact that hunting with those legs is very dificult, and would certainly have led to extinction is another powerful indicator. Exactly. Therefore, the wolves from which domestic dogs were bred did not have this allele, ergo it was an addition. It was an DNA insertion that caused this. This means an addition to the DNA you said couldn't happen.

That's correct, but again - 3 dice or 3 million, the dice are going to follow entirely predictable probability distributions.No, we can't predict exactly the outcome of any one roll of the dice. And of course scientific results are never exactly replicated - we use statistical tests to discern what results are simply the result of chance and what results are significant; what results allow us to discard the null hypothesis. "Random" doesn't mean "unreplicatable." It means "probabilistic." The human genome is 3.6 billion base pairs long, so your intuition is largely correct, any particular mutation is fairly rare. When two humans have the same mutation at the same place in their genome the most reasonable explanation is that it's there by heredity. This is the principle that underlies paternity testing. Sure. It's such a trivially observable fact that we let undergrads perform the experiments. It's so trivial, in fact, that these days you can't even publish a paper on one; no journal would publish it because it's just not significant enough. It's like trying to publish an article that says "color of sky found to be blue."Many documented cases have already been given to you. You've simply incorrectly attributed them to horizontal gene transfer or outright ignored them. I think there's plenty on your plate to respond to as it is. Incorrect - we've proved that they're random. Incorrect - we've proved that HGT was not responsible. Incorrect - you've failed to understand what "random" means. There are a countless number, which you have dismissed on entirely spurious grounds.

Yes, those are frame shift mutations. Any single or double indel is going to shift the reading frame regardless of what base it occurs at. No, they do not. Under no circumstances does this occur.Let me be absolutely clear - you have no idea what you're talking about; a frameshift mutation is not a mutation to the third base of a codon, it's an indel at any point in the gene that shifts the reading frame. "Shifts" the reading "frame." "Frameshift." Get it? There is only one form of frameshift mutation - an indel. Point substitutions don't shift the reading frame. It makes perfect sense because the reading frame is three bases long; three indels is going to remove or add an entire codon. 3 modulus 3 equals zero. Frameshift mutation - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A frameshift mutation (also called a framing error or a reading frame shift) is a genetic mutation caused by indels (insertions or deletions) of a number of nucleotides that is not evenly divisible by three from a DNA sequence. Due to the triplet nature of gene expression by codons, the insertion or deletion can change the reading frame (the grouping of the codons), resulting in a completely different translation from the original. The earlier in the sequence the deletion or insertion occurs, the more altered the protein produced is.

---

When you do a number of indels divisible by three there's no frameshift mutation. When you do one indel, that's a frameshift because one is not divisible by three. When you do three indels you've just taken out or added an entire codon so there's no shift to the reading frame. Take out the periods because they're clearly messing you up.Indel 1:TTh eca rwa sre dTh ere dca rha don eke yTA GIndel 2:TTT hec arw asr edT her edc arh ado nek eyT AGIndel 3:TTT The car was red The red car had one key TAGBack to normal.Or let's use your example: Indel 3:The jca rwa sre. dTt hXe red car had one key the TAGFrameshift mutations happen only when the number of indels is not divisible by three. As you can see, the reading frame is restored after the third indel. Divisible-by-three amounts of indels don't shift the reading frame. Organisms don't really rely on the stop codon as much as you think; protein synthesis ends when the ribosome reaches the stop codon but it also ends when the ribosome runs off the end of the RNA. Losing a stop codon doesn't really matter. A frameshift might introduce a spurious stop codon, however, and that will have a drastic effect on the protein product.But again, the difference between your example and the genetic code is that while not every three letters is an intelligable word - our frameshift of a sentence produced garbage until it was reverted - every three bases is a codon. There aren't any unusued codons. A frameshift is more likely to alter the protein product but in only one possible case is it going to actually destroy the product - when a spurious stop codon is produced. But again, I've just shown you how easy it is to reverse a frameshift, you just add more indels until you've restored the reading frame.A frameshift doesn't cause a loss of information in the genome because the codons continue to encode amino acids. They're not lost, they're just interpreted differently. Most of your genome is information with no functional purpose. Well over 98% of the human genome is sequence with no regulatory or protein-encoding function at all.Does that suggest to you, perhaps, that the human genome is the result of mutation? Any frameshift mutation is going to produce new information randomly, because it will shift the reading frame and result in an entirely new translation of the sequence into proteins. It's not possible to produce "nonsense" codons because all possible codons code for something; the codon substitution table is fully "filled in."

As Wounded King pointed out when the experiment was first mentioned in this thread (message 263 - sorry, but I've forgotten how to link to it), the experiments did not find the same mutations, they found mutations with similar effect.To quote some specifics from the second paper (here):

quote:

---

The two mutations (ACP-1 and ACP-2) had similar effects on pH optimum and overall activity with respect to beta-glycerophosphate, and they effected similar shifts in substrate specificity. The particular mutational shift in this experiment, however, resulted in an enzyme with greater maximum activity than in the first experiment. In fact, ACP-2 effected a maximum activity at pH 6 that is approximately equal to the activity of the wild type enzyme at its pH optimum. pH4

---

So the same mutations didn't arise. The environment selected for mutations that had a particular effect, but the two different strains acheived this effect in a different way.I also wish you'd stop referring to them as bacteria. This was an experiment in yeast.

In regards to human brains.What is the evolutionary purpose to having a large brain in which only ten percent is used? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just have a smaller brain if all we need is just ten percent is needed to operate our body and give us the capacity of reason?Does this also mean that there are far more uses of the brain than have been discovered? (I'm sorry if this seems like an odd question but I don't know how else to phrase it.)

What makes you think only 10% of your brain gets used?

---

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

I think the 10% figure is a myth.

---

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