|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How novel features evolve #2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Zaius my friend,
My friend, you're misinterpreting me, my good friend. Those weren't claims, my excellent friend, of what we've found, but of how you'd respond if they *were* found, my exquisite friend.
Studies in fruit flies have turned up the same stasis in the genome as E. coli illustrates. Yes, we know you think that, my splendid friend. "Citrate isn't novelty," you again claim, my admirable friend. And I repeat, this time without examples that will confuse you, my fine friend, that in response to evidence of evolution producing novelty you'll just argue it isn't really novel, my superb friend. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I think I'm going to intervene here and make a OP's decision.
If something is new and different; it's novel. As we are definately not going to see a bacteria evolve to become a fruit fly - because that would be a miracle, not evolution - it's fair to say that a strain of bacteria previously unable to metabalise citrate in the presence of oxygen, that has changed so that it now can, is a good example of a novel feature evolving. What's more, we have found the genes that have changed in order to do it. To remind ourselves:
We were particularly excited about the actualization stage, Blount said. The actual mutation involved is quite complex. It re-arranged part of the bacteria’s DNA, making a new regulatory module that had not existed before. This new module causes the production of a protein that allows the bacteria to bring citrate into the cell when oxygen is present. That is a new trick for E. coli. The change was far from normal, Lenski said. It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed, he said. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed. My only quibble with this is that it's a change that's happened in a bacteria and not something bigger - but heyho, needs must.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1301 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
Reminds me of Ernst Haeckel and his falsified embryos. I hope you are not going to claim, ontogeny follows phylogeny. Please. This is the image of a human limb bud at 6 weeks. As you can see it's a fairly flat plate like structure. It is known that controlled cell death causes this plate of tissue to become divided into five sections to form fingers. It is easy to see how changes in expression could instead cause this plate to elongate into a fin. Yes Haeckel got it wrong that the embryonic form replays ancestral species in our evolution, but some of his ideas do hold true. Also I find it interesting that you view this sort of change as impossible, yet in Message 216 you pass off the transition from a completely herbivorous to an omnivorous diet as no big deal. Anyway sorry this was a bit rushed and I'll have to get back to your other post later. Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Percy
Yes, we know you think that, my splendid friend. "Citrate isn't novelty," you again claim, my admirable friend. And I repeat, this time without examples that will confuse you, my fine friend, that in response to evidence of evolution producing novelty you'll just argue it isn't really novel, my superb friend. LOL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So were you unable to speculate or did you lack the revelation to actually respond to that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Malcolm,
Also I find it interesting that you view this sort of change as impossible, yet in Message 216 you pass off the transition from a completely herbivorous to an omnivorous diet as no big deal. A transition from a hand to a fin (macroevolution) by what we understand and observe is scientifically impossible. Not even the studied cases of Fruit flies have ever shown to exhibit any form of macroevolution. In fact, no matter what selective pressure is applied to fruit flies they stubbornly stay fruit flies and only adapt. This statement also applies to E. coli and the evidence only confirms adaptation and not species modification.
quote: Here is a very old quote that is still true to this day.
quote: Why these adaptations cannot be evolution:
quote: About the transition of humans to eating meat, that happened when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. Decidedly a significant event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Zaius, this thread is not about macro-evolution so I've no idea why you keep trying to drag us back to it. But I see that with this.....
About the transition of humans to eating meat, that happened when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. Decidedly a significant event. .....you have decided to opt out of the thread - and reality - entirely. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
My not-so-good friend zaius137, please don't try to derail this thread.
To me, not being a biologist, this was facinating to learn how new features can evolve. The citrate digestion research stated here really was excellent (well, the parts that I more or less could follow). I learned an enormous amount and I'm very grateful to the contributors who shared their expertise so freely. Please don't try and derail this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Do you have an argument not bases on skepticism? You are correct that no one has ever personally witnessed an animal become a new 'kind'. Is that the extent of your argument; that you will only believe evolution is correct when a time machine is produced?
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Zaius,
Gee, I'm not your friend anymore? Did the belittling way in which you were employing the term finally dawn on you? You're ignoring the question. Your definition of novelty appears to depend upon whether or not it was produced by evolution, and not on the actual definition of novelty. If that's to be your strategy then there will never be any novelty for you to discuss. Why don't you just pretend to yourself, for the sake of discussion, that evolving the ability to digest citrate in the presence of oxygen is novel. It's certainly complex and non-trivial. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Percy You are still my friend but I will abstain from making any more overt friendly granting because I see you feel slighted.
You're ignoring the question. Your definition of novelty appears to depend upon whether or not it was produced by evolution, and not on the actual definition of novelty. If that's to be your strategy then there will never be any novelty for you to discuss. Is anyone here actually concerned about the actual definition of novelty? If so let us cut and paste that definition all agree on it and let the thread die. I do not believe that transport threw the cell wall of citrate by E. coli was any major innovation. It was a complex and coordinated adaptation. The evolutionist is apt to blow up any such adaptive finding way out of proportion and must grok the evidence to their paradigm. I commonly speak to scientists and researchers face to face. If they focus on very narrow evidences, it is easy to obscure the overall picture. Remember the old saying that the forest is obscured by all the trees. I am not a scientist but only a lowly novice employing the common sense that God gave. When I see that outrageous conclusions are put forth as science, it incenses me. If the participants here wish to narrow the field to the Yes it is no it isn’t argument; I believe it is a vote for ignorance. I am perfectly willing to stick to the science and am very comfortable in that position. So lets continue in reasoning whichever why it leads and if a the direction is not acceptable, let it be quenched by ignoring it. Opposition to my opinions thrills me and I appreciate it. I am not here to win an argument because it is an empty victory when nothing is learned. I hope that some of these participants can share this view as common ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Tangle,
Zaius, this thread is not about macro-evolution so I've no idea why you keep trying to drag us back to it. But I see that with this..........you have decided to opt out of the thread - and reality - entirely. OK I herby drop the inference to macroevolution in this thread, you are right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Zaius,
You are ignoring the point. Again, to you whether or not an adaptation is novel depends upon whether evolution was involved. That's why you were earlier making the error of claiming that evolution has nothing to do with adaptation. Let me state your position more plainly and in the language you were using earlier: If an adaptation involves evolution then it can't be novel. In other words, you've defined evolution and novelty as mutually exclusive. You're assuming the consequent (i.e., you're treating as a fundamental premise that which you are trying to prove). There's no point in discussing the production of novelty through evolution with you if you're simply going to dismiss any example as "not novel." So before we come up with yet another example I think you need to provide your criteria for novelty, otherwise coming up with more examples is pointless because you'll just dismiss them as "not novel" for arbitrary reasons. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Zaius writes: I do not believe that transport threw the cell wall of citrate by E. coli was any major innovation. It was a complex and coordinated adaptation. The evolutionist is apt to blow up any such adaptive finding way out of proportion and must grok the evidence to their paradigm. We're not looking for major innovations (whatever they are). We're looking fot a novel feature, no matter how small, that is new, creates a selective advantage and can be traced directly to a genetic mutation. It's an amazingly difficult task, as we've seen, but the citrate example seems to do it for us and the mice got very, very close. Waving your arms around and saying that it's not novel enough for you or just an 'adaption' isn't working. Soon now, as our understanding of molecular genetics improves, you're going to be presented with evidence you can't make excuses for. Have you thought how you'll deal with that?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A novel feature's a novel feature
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024