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:   Increases in Genetic Information
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 121 of 193 (697720)
04-29-2013 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
04-29-2013 4:47 AM


Re: Understanding indirect observation
That doesn't contradict what I said, does it? And mutations are known to cause new variants.
Who said anything about mutations here? I said that pre-existing phenotypes get selected. That's not a mutation. If gangsters walked into a nightclub and open fired with machine guns at waste height, killing everyone over four feet tall, then all the little people suddenly become the predominant population. The population didn't "mutate" into smaller people. The environment merely gave the little people who already existed, a selective advantage over their taller relatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 04-29-2013 4:47 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-29-2013 10:38 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2013 10:42 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 130 by bluegenes, posted 04-29-2013 1:12 PM Just being real has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 122 of 193 (697723)
04-29-2013 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Just being real
04-29-2013 9:24 AM


quote:
Lol! Okay, so I guess you guys really showed me huh? The fact that I said "doctoral dissertations" when I probably should have just said "PAPERS" totally destroys my whole point.
Copying someone else's error is bad enough. Claiming that you had evidence to support it - in ways that look like an attempt to deceive - is quite another. Even the figure you got from Wikipedia was evidence against your claim.
And this is only one of the problems with the post that sparked this discussion.
And I think the fact that acceptance of Piltdown was far from universal in the scientific community is an issue that needs to be mentioned.
quote:
And if that is true how exactly does that also undermine the fact that the public was deceived by Piltdown man along also with Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Ramapithecu, and Neanderthalensis?
Because there can't be more errors in your post? So far as I recall Ramapithecus is the only problematic one in that list, and even that was only a mistake.
quote:
Cause I'm not seeing the relevance, with the exception of a sad attempt at making me look bad as opposed to having anything really substantial to speak to the point I was making.
How do you know that you haven't uncritically copied other falsehoods ? How many have you checked with reliable sources ? And as I pointed put above you've done far more to make yourself look bad than anyone else. Nobody forced you to claim to have support that you didn't have. You did that all by yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 9:24 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 123 of 193 (697724)
04-29-2013 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Just being real
04-29-2013 4:03 AM


Re: Thoughts on human evolution
Just being rea writes:
Moving on, I am sure you think that none exist, so let me ask you a question. Why does a site that is famous for knocking creationists and intelligent design proponents (Wikipedia) also even admit that there were at least 250?
Wikipedia says "250+ papers", not doctoral theses. 250+ papers is perfectly believable, since in a lifetime an active scientist will produce many papers, and because Piltdown Man received a great deal of attention at the time. Which quickly died away as it became evident that Piltdown Man was an outlier that didn't fit with the rest of the fossil record as it existed at the time, and its outlier status only became more evident with time. By the time fraud was demonstrated it had been ignored in paleontological circles for decades.
But "500 doctoral dissertations that were written between 1908 and 1953" is not believable, because most scientists will in their lifetime produce only one. And look at the beginning date you gave of 1908. Perhaps you can explain how students produced doctoral theses in 1908 about a discovery that wasn't made until 1912?
I know the micro versus macroevolution argument was present in the thread's opening post, but as has been pointed out, the thread's originator was mistaken in believing it is relevant to the thread's central focus, which is increases in genetic information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 4:03 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coragyps, posted 04-29-2013 9:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 124 of 193 (697725)
04-29-2013 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
04-29-2013 9:55 AM


Re: Thoughts on human evolution
Perhaps you can explain how students produced doctoral theses in 1908 about a discovery that wasn't made until 1912?
That one was in physics. Time travel, y'know.

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 04-29-2013 9:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 125 of 193 (697729)
04-29-2013 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Just being real
04-29-2013 9:24 AM


Lol! Okay, so I guess you guys really showed me huh? The fact that I said "doctoral dissertations" when I probably should have just said "PAPERS" totally destroys my whole point... how is that again exactly? Obviously as I already admitted, I don't know the thesis personally. And as I'm sure you already know, I followed someone else's error in poor choice of wording.
You followed someone else's lie in reciting it.
But does this error in wording mean that no scientists were ever deceived by Piltdown man? And if that is true how exactly does that also undermine the fact that the public was deceived by Piltdown man along also with Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Ramapithecu, and Neanderthalensis?
The fact that that's not a fact kinda undermines that "fact".
Have you learned nothing from being suckered by the Piltdown Man nonsense you recited? Like a little humility?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 9:24 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 126 of 193 (697730)
04-29-2013 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Just being real
04-29-2013 9:36 AM


Re: Understanding indirect observation
Who said anything about mutations here?
This issue is precisely that you didn't say anything about them. It's a fairly important thing to leave out.
A: What's two plus two?
B: Three. Or maybe five. Or seventeen.
A: How about four?
B: Who said anything about four here?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 9:36 AM Just being real has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 127 of 193 (697732)
04-29-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Just being real
04-29-2013 9:36 AM


Re: Understanding indirect observation
Who said anything about mutations here?
Not you. But then noone is anyone accusing you of saying anything about mutations. Below is what you actually posted.
Oh contraire silly rabbit. Most variations within species can be shown to be merely natural selection "selecting" already existing phenotypes within the species.
That's right, your post accounts only for "most" variations within species, which is completely consistent and not in any way contradictory to the position of people who say that mutations do play a role in creating variation. Bluegenes correctly pointed out exactly that bit of reality.
You seem to be a bit off your game today[1]. Not only are your posts replete with logical and factual errors, the above being an example of a logic error, you have the gall to accuse people who point out those errors of being the ones making you look bad.
Well, no. You are doing that all by yourself. Your aggressive blustering and excuses for your errors just draws attention to the fact that you are extremely careless about your claims. You are suppose to vet your own sources rather than relying on us to do it.
[1] Not that your reasoning is ever much to talk about. But usually you aren't quite this bad.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 9:36 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 128 of 193 (697740)
04-29-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Just being real
04-29-2013 1:19 AM


Re: BS on human evolution
Just to address one point in your long string of nonsense.
A question for you: What good are casts that are not accurate?
Do you really think scientists have any use for inaccurate casts? Do you think that the professionals who create these casts fail to measure their casts against the originals?
Also, do you have a source for the claim that the fossil casts failed to fit some enclosures at the American Museum of Natural History?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 1:19 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-29-2013 1:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 129 of 193 (697741)
04-29-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jbozz21
04-28-2013 7:13 PM


Re: On Increases in Genetic Information
Hi jbozz,
Bluegenes in message 100 has pretty much answered your question.
I can agree that this redundancy in the yeast genome benefits the yeast and that without it, it doesn't function as well. Although I would be careful not to assume that this redundancy in genes is actually a genetic mutation. Is there any solid research to support this?
The redundancy is caused by gene duplication which is a form of mutation. Thus, a mutation (gene duplication) results in a gain in genomic information and confers a beneficial function. So it is perfectly possible for a genome to gain information while also gaining a functional advantage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jbozz21, posted 04-28-2013 7:13 PM jbozz21 has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 130 of 193 (697745)
04-29-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Just being real
04-29-2013 9:36 AM


Re: Understanding indirect observation
Just being real writes:
Who said anything about mutations here?
I did. Mutations are what creates novel variation. I said:
bluegenes writes:
And mutations are known to cause new variants.
JBR writes:
I said that pre-existing phenotypes get selected.
Yes, they do. You said:
Just being real writes:
Oh contraire silly rabbit. Most variations within species can be shown to be merely natural selection "selecting" already existing phenotypes within the species.
Which didn't contradict what I was saying about common descent, and is also badly worded. Neither natural selection nor drift create the variation. They are the processes that change the frequency of variants. Of course the variants are there before natural selection can act on them.
Whenever a new mutation that effects the phenotype in a specific way occurs in an individual, that is novel "specified information".
In the rest of the post you're replying to, I gave you some papers to read with examples of past increases in genetic information and increases in the quantity of protein coding genes occuring in eukaryotes. They show clear examples of what this thread is about. "Increases in genetic information".
I hope you enjoyed the papers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 9:36 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 131 of 193 (697747)
04-29-2013 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Coyote
04-29-2013 12:18 PM


Re: BS on human evolution
Also, do you have a source for the claim that the fossil casts failed to fit some enclosures at the American Museum of Natural History?
No, lets get this right, he alleges that the real fossils failed to fit display cases which were based on the casts. Apparently he inhabits some parallel universe in which museums manufacture form-fitting display cases for fossils, and a millimeter or so either way prevents them from fitting them in the cases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Coyote, posted 04-29-2013 12:18 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 132 of 193 (697748)
04-29-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Just being real
04-29-2013 9:24 AM


Just being real writes:
Lol! Okay, so I guess you guys really showed me huh? The fact that I said "doctoral dissertations" when I probably should have just said "PAPERS" totally destroys my whole point... how is that again exactly? Obviously as I already admitted, I don't know the thesis personally. And as I'm sure you already know, I followed someone else's error in poor choice of wording. But does this error in wording mean that no scientists were ever deceived by Piltdown man? And if that is true how exactly does that also undermine the fact that the public was deceived by Piltdown man along also with Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Ramapithecu, and Neanderthalensis?
Cause I'm not seeing the relevance, with the exception of a sad attempt at making me look bad as opposed to having anything really substantial to speak to the point I was making.
You told an untruth about doctoral dissertations.You were caught out telling untruths.
It seems as if not even one doctoral dissertation on Piltdown Man was ever submitted. You told a porkie about it.
Your word salads won't ever change the fact that you, personally, didn't tell the truth. No matter how many word salds you employ.
You can never be trusted. About anything.
You repeat porkies. That's all you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Just being real, posted 04-29-2013 9:24 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 133 of 193 (697758)
04-29-2013 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jbozz21
04-28-2013 2:33 AM


Re: No support,,, humbug...
I am sorry I was being sarcastic with my comment, not to excuse myself but that was because Taq was totally missing my point. It doesn't matter how many genes a potato has because it wasn't the first living organism. Despite the fact that potatoes have more genes than a human, A organism that doesn't have the genetic information for arms and legs, head, spleen, kidney and whatever else. Needs to obtain that from somewhere. It has to have more base pairs so it can code for those things.
Firstly, what can we conclude about your arguments related to genome size and gene counts as measures of complexity? They both fail miserably. We can find single celled organisms with hundreds of times more DNA than humans. We can find simple plants that have twice as many genes as we do. In other words, there is no correlation between complexity and size of the genome or number of genes.
Secondly, there is still the chance that the earliest life had a very large genome.
Finally, why can't "arms and legs, head, spleen, kidney and whatever else" come from mutations in already existing genes?
By the way potatoes have more genes than a human because the plant is polyploidy,so many of the genes are duplicated which means that it does not have as many unique protein coding genes.
There is your mechanism for macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jbozz21, posted 04-28-2013 2:33 AM jbozz21 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 134 of 193 (697759)
04-29-2013 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jbozz21
04-27-2013 2:31 PM


No, the question is can they...
This is the second definition from Species Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary
Whether or not they CAN have offspring doesn't matter one whit if they DON'T. What we are looking for is a mechanism by which different mutations will accumulate in each population, and to do that there can not be genetic flow between the two populations. Citing examples where there is no genetic flow meets that criteria. They are separate species because they are genetically isolated and are accumulating population specific mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jbozz21, posted 04-27-2013 2:31 PM jbozz21 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 135 of 193 (697761)
04-29-2013 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jbozz21
04-28-2013 3:39 AM


If you skew the difference between macro and micro then you basically make micro-evolution look like macro with lots of time and it is easy to convince people that it is true that way because micro is well observed and "proven". But there is no solid observational evidence whatsoever to support macro-evolution.
Macroevolution is separate microevolutionary events in separate populations. Micro produces macro if there is a lack of genetic flow between the two populations.
For example, the differences seen between the chimp and human genomes are a series of microevolutionary events. Each mutation is a single event that was selected for or was not selected against (i.e. neutral drift). Over time, these microevolutionary events add up until there are major differences between the two populations.
Since you already agree that humans and chimps are different species, would you consider evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps as a falsification of your claims?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jbozz21, posted 04-28-2013 3:39 AM jbozz21 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