|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Increases in Genetic Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. Well, no. Because you have to find out if it has intent, i.e. an intelligent source, as a pre-condition for knowing if it was specified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
JBR writes: 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. So when you read this:
Pyrethroid insecticides target the sodium channels within the insect nervous system. Point mutations in the sodium channels, termed the kdr mutations, reduce or eliminate the binding affinity of insecticides to sodium channels causing insecticide resistance6. Two mutations, V419L and L925I, in voltage-gated sodium channel α-subunit gene had been identified as very important substitutions responsible for deltamethrin resistance in bed bugs21, 30. A causal link between one or both mutations and deltamethrin resistance was reported21. A dual-primer Allele-Specific PCR (dASPCR) approach was developed to identify these two kdr mutations. Two PCR reactions performed with Susceptible Allele-Specific Primer (SASP) and Resistant Allele-Specific Primer (RASP) primers conclusively show status of kdr mutations (Fig. 2A). ...with it's talk of point mutations, you reckon they're not mutations? What are they then? Where did they come from?
A mutation can occur in the insect’s DNA which makes the site that DDT attaches to, less specific So a mutation CAN occur? Now I'm confused.
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. So if I have a word 'CHAIR' and I lose the letter "H" to get the new word "HAIR" no new information has been created?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So if I have a word 'CHAIR' and I lose the letter "H" to get the new word "HAIR" no new information has been created? Ignoring the typo (a 'C' was lost, not an 'H'), I think you are conceding a bit too much here by proposing that something was lost. I don't read the following as saying a letter was lost, but rather that a letter was changed, e.g an R in chair to an 'N': From the article...
quote: The point mutation did not remove a site; the mutation changed a site from binding to non binding for pyrethroid insecticides. The site did not get destroyed, it was reconfigured. And Who knows what new molecule can bind at the reconfigured site? And what did the site do originally?
JBR writes: 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. Total BS from someone motivated not to see the unavoidable. Nothing like the above is described in the article. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Just being real writes: 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... Yes, of course it is nonsense.
(By the way, instead of [qs][b]Percy:[/b] you can just use [qs=Percy].) I also would point out that your disdain for anything Dembski uses, seems a bit paranoid to me. Really? You called it nonsense, so what's that make you? Maybe you could keep your focus on the topic instead of attempting to psychoanalyze your fellow participants. When you're ready to deal with what I actually said about Dembski and "specified information" then you just let us know, okay?
However specificity (anything identified to have a specific purpose or intent) is only observed coming from intelligent agents... Except for your apparent dislike of the "complex" modifier, you're just describing Dembki's theory, which let me remind you again you called nonsense. Dembski provided no method or analytical technique for determining whether information was specified, and you don't seem to have one either. All you really have is what everyone else also has, the ability to say whether or not something appears to have been produced by people. For those things falling into an indeterminate category you have nothing. You also have no definition of intelligence, and so no basis for saying whether something was produced by an intelligence.
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? How is adding or subtracting an ingredient for a recipe not a change in information? As I said, I have a feeling that at the foundation of your position lies a misunderstanding of information theory. Any copying error during reproduction will, by definition, introduce new information. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
How does this difference demonstrate the "observation" I am talking about Taq? Those differences are mutations that have occurred in one lineage or the other, and they are responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimps.
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. That is false. We determine common ancestry by the PATTERN of similarities and differences. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.
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. Not an assumption. It is a conclusion drawn from constructing phylogenies. Chimps and humans have a much more recent common ancestor than humans and gorillas, and the even more distantly related orangutan. These are all conclusions drawn from real life data using real genetic techniques, not assumptions.
A conclusion drawn completely on similarity arguments which do not aid in the debate between intelligent design or evolution. Why doesn't it aid in the debate?
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. Cars and airplaines made by Saab do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why any designer would be forced to limit designs to a nested hierarchy. However, that is the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolution can produce. What do we see with life? Life falls into a nested hierarchy just as we would expect from the process of evolution and not intelligent design.
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. No one is claiming that poems evolve from one another through mutation and selection. We are talking about DNA which is not a poem.
Likewise you can't get from bacteria to humans just by changing DNA sequences. Evidence please.
I am saying that this process has never been observed that I know of. Of course not. This is because you define any change in DNA sequence as a loss in information. You have really defined yourself out of the debate. Using your definition of an "increase in information", evolution does not need to increase information as you define it in order to produce the biodiversity we see around us. The mutations that separate species are all that is needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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. That is exactly what we have with the differences found between the human and chimp genome. Perhaps you can tell us why these differences could not be produced by the observed processes of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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. So how do you determine if a sequence is specified or not? From what I have seen, the specificity argument is nothing more than the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia
All I have seen so far are examples of natural selection of pre-existing genes in the gene pool, Those genes come from mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Just being real writes: 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. You see new information every time a mutation changes a phenotype. Why don't you just learn to read history on genomes? Here's the rest of the post you clicked on the reply button to, but avoided the point of:
quote: If you disagree with the analysis of past mutations in this paper, tell us why.
Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflict.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
On your second article:
Bacteria 'evolving in the lab'? (Lenski, citrate-digesting E. coli) - creation.com The article was written in 2008, and the author speculates on what happened in the Lenski experiment when one strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate in oxic conditions.
Here's a 2012 paper in which the researchers identify some of the mutations that contributed to the adaptation. So, you can see for yourself how wrong Don Batten's speculations are. A new regulatory gene was created by duplication and fusion after (probably) at least two potentiating neutral mutations, and then further mutations refined the system. There may well have been 7 or more mutations involved in some of the current cit+ organisms, and the process of refinement is "open ended" as the paper puts it (it is probably still going on). As one of the things you are asking about in the O.P. is increases in genetic material and increases in functional genetic material, the Lenski results with their multiple duplications are a good example of such increases happening in real time. Batten's also wrong and misleading on the development of chloroquine resistance in malarial parasites, but that's another very interesting subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1296 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
This is not helping your assertion that man evolved from a lesser species. That is not an improvement. Plus a vitamin C producing gene DESTROYING mutation is not beneficial mutation that is selected for against those that don't have the mutation. If anything those without the vitamin c mutation are more fit than those without it. For many people you cannot get too much vitamin c and if you do you just pee it out. But in times of famine or plague high amounts of vitamin c would boost your immune system and make you more fit to overcome the infection. If anything this only helps the idea that man was created and not evolved, because any organism not being able to produce vitamin c we would either be selected out or randomly mixed with others that can produce vitamin c. Those that can produce vitamin c would not be selected out of the population because they are not less fit. That goes against the theory of evolution. So on the one hand we have the theory of evolution suggesting that we share a common ancestor with the great apes and it was in this common ancestor that the ability to produce vitamin c was lost due to a mutation on the gene. This did not pose a problem because, like the majority of the great apes, this common ancestor existed in tropical rain forests which have different species of fruiting trees throughout the year, providing a constant supply of vitamin c in their diet. As this common ancestor evolved, this same vitamin c pseudogene was inherited by it's descendants, today's great apes including humans. On the other hand we have the argument we were specially created with a broken vitamin c gene, carrying the same disabling mutation as the other great apes, but not bats, guinea pigs and capybaras. And the reasoning behind this is what, exactly? Is it the same reasoning we share other pseudogenes with apes, or the shared ERV sequences, or that extra centromere sequence on chromosome 2?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1296 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
Percy, humans have always have had the ability to digest lactose. I think what your refering to is the adult human's ability to. We are born with it and then loose it after we stop breast feeding. We stopped loosing the ability as adults when we started drinking other animals milks, mainly cows. So that is not new information just old genes that don't get turned off. You talk of this as if changes in regulation of genes is unimportant, yet in multicellular organisms it is of fundamental importance to how species evolves. As a general idea consider the skeletal structure of tetrapods, whether it's a human, bird, lizard or amphibian. The basic structure is the same, but it is through changes in gene regulation that allows this basic structure to be adapted, so for example an arm becomes a wing. It can also be seen in human evolution with the gradual increase in brain capacity from Australopithecus to Homo Sapiens (a picture of this was posted recently but can't remember if it was this topic or another). So consider Human Accelerated Regions. These are regions that are highly conserved, the example in the article is HAR-1 which is a 118bp section which only has 2 nucleotides different between chickens and apes. But from apes to man, this region acquired 18 mutations. What is important is that this region includes part of two non-coding RNA genes which are expressed in the brain during foetal development in the telencephalon, and in adults throughout the cerebellum and forebrain. So this change in expression of regulatory genes could have precipitated the evolution of our brain.Another 48 HAR's have also been identified and many of these have also been associated with neurodevelopment. Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024