Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Increases in Genetic Information
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 147 of 193 (698148)
05-03-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Tangle
05-03-2013 9:15 AM


A report today about how bed bugs have developed immunity to insectacides.
This sounds like a possible winner. Unfortunately something is wrong with your link and I couldn’t view the paper. I will research it and get back with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2013 9:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2013 4:02 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 178 of 193 (698712)
05-09-2013 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Tangle
05-03-2013 9:15 AM


How bed bugs have developed immunity to insectacides.
First I want to draw your attention to the fact that this is not a case of observed added new information that never existed before. As I suspected prior to reading the paper, this is a case of observed pre-existing information being selected to become dominant in a group or population. The protein that makes the bedbugs immune to insecticides already existed in a small minority of bedbugs and researchers merely injected that protein into a control group and then observed it become the dominant trait in that group. Scientists have known that mutations can make insects immune to the effects of insecticides for a long time. However, these are not as a result of a mutation which added new (never before existed) information.
For example a molecule of DDT acts by binding itself to a specific matching site on an insect’s nerve cell membrane, where it prevents the nerve from functioning properly. After enough DDT molecules are bound to the nerve cells, the nervous system breaks down and the insect dies. A mutation can occur in the insect’s DNA which makes the site that DDT attaches to, less specific (loss of information), preventing the DDT from binding to its intended site and rendering the insect immune to DDT. Of course changes in insect’s protein often render the insect less fit for its environment in some other way. After the insecticide threat is removed, the insect populations will usually switch right back to their original gene configuration. This is further evidence that this is not the kind of change that explains macro evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2013 9:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2013 3:05 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 179 of 193 (698713)
05-09-2013 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Taq
05-03-2013 11:05 AM


JBR: I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism that gave it a selective advantage over its relatives.
Taq: Find the differences between the humans and chimp genomes. Those are the mutations you are looking for.
How does this difference demonstrate the "observation" I am talking about Taq? You are using circular reasoning here. You are saying in effect that chimps are related to humans via evolution. And that we know evolution is true via differences between chimp and human genomes. But I'm saying that I want off this crazy ride. I want an example in which some organism was "observed" in the process of gaining new information. This is what it would take to swing the scales from intelligent design, back over in favor of evolution.
Taq: You compare them to a third species. If two of the species share the same base at a given position then that gives you information on the ancestral sequence.
How do you "know" that is what that means Taq? No one observed which specie is the oldest and therefore it is merely an assumption.
Taq: In fact, we don't even need to know what function an endogenous retrovirus may have in each genome in order to test whether or not humans and other ape species share a common ancestor.
What I am saying is that unless you have observation of something occurring to connect those dots, it is merely an argument based on similarity which is completely open to any interpretation.
Taq: The logical reason is the mountains of evidence supporting universal common ancestry such as the ever present nested hierarchy.
A conclusion drawn completely on similarity arguments which do not aid in the debate between intelligent design or evolution.
Taq: This is the very pattern of shared and derived features that we would expect evolution to produce. You are essentially saying that a designer would make it look like evolution happened, even if it didn't.
No this is what one would expect if a highly intelligent designer were responsible for creating all forms of life to all exist and function within the same biosphere. The auto manufacturer known as Saab also once created aircraft.. Just because there are some similarity between the two forms of transportation does not imply that Saab intentionally meant to deceive us into thinking evolution had occurred.
Taq: By mutations we mean changes in the DNA sequence of your genome as compared to that of your parents. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, so they can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental.
Look Taq, I don't care how many ways you randomly change the "Roses are red violets are blue" poem, It will never become the classic novel "Wuthering Heights," unless a good deal of new information is added along with the changes. Likewise you can't get from bacteria to humans just by changing DNA sequences. You have to add a good deal of new information over time. I am saying that this process has never been observed that I know of. Just because my genome is a change compared to my parents, it still is only a manipulation of alleles that already exist within the human gene pool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Taq, posted 05-03-2013 11:05 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Taq, posted 05-09-2013 1:26 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 180 of 193 (698714)
05-09-2013 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by NoNukes
05-03-2013 12:17 PM


Re: Nuclear contamination?
NoNukes: A mutation is simply an inheritable change in a genome of an organism. In multi-celled animals the change has to be a part of the reproductive cells to be inheritable, but it is certainly appropriate to call such a change in a lung cell a mutation if it affects new lung cells.
Yes if it can be shown that such a mutation actually added new information to the genome which gave the organism a selective advantage over its relatives, then I would agree. But what I was describing was not anything like that.
NoNukes: This 'never known before now' stuff is complete nonsense. As long as the change was not a part of any of the ancestors of say a raven, why would it be important that the genetic sequence was known before in some other, non ancestural animal, such as a penguin.
Obviously I was referring to the organism-population in question and not just any organism. I find it odd that you would insinuate otherwise. Are you really interested in discussing the issues or just trying to find a flaw in, and picking apart my wording? If mice were observed developing gills (for example) and could breath under water that would most definitely count, even though the genes for creating gills have existed in fish for thousands of years. It has never been observed existing in mice and would therefore be new never before existed information.
NoNukes: You seem to want mutant to mean the cartoon version of mutant as applied to the X-men.
No, I just want an observed addition of new information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism that demonstrates macro evolution is at least feasibly possible. This seems like a reasonable request since there are an estimated 8.7 million species today that are said to have all evolved from an original single common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2013 12:17 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 05-09-2013 1:29 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 181 of 193 (698715)
05-09-2013 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
05-04-2013 9:49 AM


Percy: "Specified information" is a term made up by creationists, specifically William Dembski.
Actually, your thinking of his "complex specified information," which is a term he may have coined into a catchy little phrase, but it doesn't mean he invented the concepts that go into it. Of course it is nonsense because complexity does not equate to intelligence. Again we observe complex patterns form all the time by natural laws of physics. However specificity (anything identified to have a specific purpose or intent) is only observed coming from intelligent agents and is very useful in identifying something with an intelligent source. I also would point out that your disdain for anything Dembski uses, seems a bit paranoid to me. Something akin to refusing to ride in automobiles simply because Hitler used one.
Percy: We presented evidence of advantageous mutations, and you presented your excuses for why you're ignoring that evidence.
Really? All I have seen so far are examples of natural selection of pre-existing genes in the gene pool, or of a loss of information that happened to be advantageous to the organism. Nothing that would demonstrate that molecules to man is possible. But if you have at least one in particular you feel qualifies, could you please redirect my attention to it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 05-04-2013 9:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2013 2:46 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 05-09-2013 8:50 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 05-09-2013 1:35 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 182 of 193 (698716)
05-09-2013 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by bluegenes
05-04-2013 3:52 PM


Re: Observation of past events in the present.
bluegenes: How do you expect something to be observed before it exists, and how do you expect natural selection to act on anything other than "already existing genes"?
I don't expect anything to be observed before it exists. I expect that evolutionists will continue to study fruit flies and bedbugs etc... in a controlled lab and observe them develop the ability to digest something they never could before or some similar trait that never existed in the gene pool prior to then. And that the change be the result of added new information. What I wont accept is the same old shuffle game where they keep moving the ball from cup to cup and try and tell me this explains the existence of 8.7 million different balls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by bluegenes, posted 05-04-2013 3:52 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2013 3:55 PM Just being real 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