New complexity observed?

Howdy. I'm a lowly college student looking to see if there is evidence of the formation of new complexity. But first let’s make sure we all know what I am NOT asking for.- Loss of genetic information -
(Example - Bacteria loses the genetic regulator that prevents
excessive creation of Penicillinase, thereby making it immune
to Penicillin.)
- Re-mixing existing information -
(Example - Dog breeding )
- Copying existing genetic information. -
(Example - A mutated chicken growing feathers on its feet)
- Activating dormant genes -
(Example - White rabbits can grow black hair if put in an extra cold environment)

Snowshoe rabbits are white. The Arctic is an 'extra cold environment'.Ever heard of camouflage? How about we make sure what you ARE asking for.

Well, considering that you are using a faulty definition of evolution, there isn't much of anything that we can give you. Except, of course, the infamous nylon-eating bacteria.

---

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Not sure what you mean by "complexity", nor what it's relevance is to evolution. You will have to define what you mean, rather then simply telling us what you won't accept as examples of this so far unknown/undefined entity.This sounds suspiciously like you are not who you say you are. Perhaps I am wrong but this appears more like a rhetorical flourish by an ID theorist. After all that is the only theory I know of which discusses "complexity" and "information" as if they are actual qualities within genes... not to mention a priori not allowing changes within a gene structure to be an increase in compexity or a change in information, when something new in its phenotype is produced.But maybe yours is an innocent question. Okay then, you need to define your terms for "complexity" and "information" as well as describing why those examples are NOT changes in either.And you might want to move this to the Intelligent Design forum. There you may find a couple of threads that I have started on HIV resistance in Prostitutes and a New Plant Species. Those SHOULD be examples of increased complexity (according to ID), but if you can do some research and get back to me how they are not I'll be happy to look it over.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay, here it is again:
A definition and explanation of evolution: http://EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science
An example:

quote:

---

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist ("flagellate"). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

---

To sum up the article:
The unicellular eukaryote (a single celled organism that has a nucleus), Chlorella vulgaris, has stayed single-celled for thousands of generations.
In the experiment, this Chlorlla was innoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, meaning that they added some Ochromonas to where the Chlorella were living. Ochromonas vallescia is a phagotrophic (Wikipedia explanation, Pictures and video of phagocytosis at CellsAlive) flagellated (Wikipedia) protist (dictionary)
Within 100 generation of being exposed to the predator, Chlorella formed clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. It doesn't say in the article how they formed the clusters, but it probably was that they didn't separate after telophase. Go to Animal Cell Mitosis, and use the slider to look at telophase and cytokinesis. Usually, unicellular eukaryotes separate during cytokinesis, but in this case, they instead formed clusters and stayed attached to one another. To answer your question from the other thread: Essentially, instead of dividing and separating, these cells stuck to one another after they divided. They did not replicate themselves inside of themselves, they simply "stuck" to one another.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Well, I'm flattered that someone thinks I'm not a student, but I am. I'm actually a film student who likes to study random stuff in my spare time. At first I didn't even know what an ID Theorist was, but now I get it. Intelligent Design right? We'll I guess I might be then because I do believe in God. I don't see why I wouldn't. If life is meaningless then who cares.The thing about the rabbits is a specific experiment I read about in "The complete idiots guide to life science" Don't have the book with me now but if you want I could send you the page number later.I'll know what I'm looking for when I find it. Sorry, I'll try to figure out more clearly what exactly I'm looking for. I just know whatever it is I haven't found it yet.
Lets look at the HIV resistance stuff you talked about. Tell me more. What exactly is the experiment or observation? Is there a web page on it?As for the cells sticking together, I don't have time to look at the links right now. But I should have time in the next couple days to look them over and get back to you with any questions. Ok, well good talking to ya'll. See ya!

quote:

---

I'm flattered that someone thinks I'm not a student, but I am.

---

I was not trying to suggest you were not a student. I was trying to suggest you were not really coming in looking for evidence of anything. The nature of your question was posed for a specific outcome, and it indicated a set belief system that involved no real knowledge or interest in evolution.I'm not sure where you got your information regarding evolution, but concepts of "information" and "complexity" indicate it is not from mainstream science materials. These are generally located only in Intelligent Design material. You would be best to avoid that kind of literature as they are less worthy than a "complete idiot's guide".

quote:

---

I do believe in God. I don't see why I wouldn't. If life is meaningless then who cares.

---

I and many other atheists find life has a meaning without pretending fairy tales are real. If anything I personally feel the existence of Gods makes life meaningless. In that reality you would mean absolutely nothing, the only thing that matters is them. You might as well be a handpuppet.But let's say they do exist, that does not tell us what mechanisms they used to create life, or if they even guided its development. ID wants to jump to conclusions by making up new fairytale concepts and masquerade them as science.

quote:

---

I'll know what I'm looking for when I find it. Sorry, I'll try to figure out more clearly what exactly I'm looking for. I just know whatever it is I haven't found it yet.

---

If you are truly interested in science, then this is NOT IT. Your question appeared to indicate you thought you knew what you were looking for, namely information, complexity, and genetic material.Are you saying you did not know the definition of the words you used in your own initial post?

quote:

---

Lets look at the HIV resistance stuff you talked about. Tell me more. What exactly is the experiment or observation? Is there a web page on it?

---

It's in this thread.While you are at it, you can look at this thread on a new species of plant.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The paragraph below is a summary of who I am and what my deal is regarding this stuff. Just skip it is you don't care about that.
I'm a Telecommunications and Film major at Eastern Michigan University, and I really got interested in the whole evolution debate after I went with a friend to hear a creationist speaker who gave me a book called "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati. After reading the book I was really mad about some misleading statements some evolutionists had made, but since then I've chilled out and also found many misleading statements made by creationists. I believe in God whether or not evolution can be proved to me. Lately I'm really determined to get a clear understanding of this stuff, so I have been doing some research on the web, and checking out books at the library. Try to remember I'm a lay person when responding to my questions.-What I'm looking for -After sleeping on it I think I can better describe to you all what I'm looking for specifically in this forumc. A small increase in complexity that can't be disputed.(You may have already provided it, but, I'll probably have some questions.) By increase in complexity I mean it has a different kind of working DNA strand that it never had before. DNA tells a cell what to do right? So then for a fish to ever evolve lungs or something like that it would need to evolve lots of new DNA strands that work together to make the lungs work right? If this shows a complete lack of understanding about genetics I apologize ahead of time. I really am here to try and learn.I'm going to read the links you gave me now, but I probably won't have time to respond till tomorrow because I have class tonight.The thing about the rabbits is on page 302 of "The Complete Idiots Guide to Life Science" It says they shaved Himalayan rabbits and then made them really really cold with ice packs, and then the fur would grow back black, but that "without an ice pack or lowered temperatures the hair grew back white."

Just ran across this abstract: So, as you can see, there is no real measure of complexity other than a colloquial referrence. However, a decrease in current complexity can acutally cause a future increase in complexity, at least according to this author. I don't have access to the whole paper, I would like to read more about this authors hypotheses, but it seems that questions of what exactly complexity is may be insufficient for describing evolving populations.

Just to let you know, when you reply to someone you should hit the reply button at the end of their message and not at the bottom of the page. Not sure if you were meaning to make a general reply or not, but thought I should let you know just in case.

quote:

---

I really got interested in the whole evolution debate after I went with a friend to hear a creationist speaker who gave me a book called "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati.

---

This is possibly the worst way to get "interested" in evolution. It starts one off with a completely incoherent view of what is being discussed.For example, its not the best to become interested in the nature and tenets of Judaism, by attending a nazi rally, thinking maybe you have actually learned something.

quote:

---

If this shows a complete lack of understanding about genetics I apologize ahead of time. I really am here to try and learn.

---

It does show a rather large absence of knowledge, not just of genetics but of evolutionary theory.If you are seriously interested in this subject you should start poking around this site or others (by scientists) which describe mechanisms of evolutionary change.

quote:

---

The thing about the rabbits is on page 302 of "The Complete Idiots Guide to Life Science"

---

I have no idea what those rabbits have to do with evolution, information, or complexity. This appears to be a case of environmental influence on expression of hair color.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Unfortunately Sarfati's "Refuting Evolution" is not a good place to start learning anything about science or evolution. Here is a review of Sarfati's book by a geologist detailing some of Sarfati's errors and inaccuracies in geology. And Sarfati's errors and inaccuracies are in everything he writes on evolution.

A chromosome is a single strand of DNA(well, more correctly it's a single double-stranded helix), so you're essentially asking for an example of the development of a new chromosome. However, I think you should first read some books about how DNA works and somesuch before you try to relate it to evolution, as transcription and translation are a bit complicated. I recommend that you look for the book "Galileo's Finger" by Peter Atkins in your library or somesuch place and read the second chapter to gain a basic understanding of it.
On second thought, perhaps you should first try reading some of the articles at wikipedia:DNA,
Genetics.
As for "some misleading statements some evolutionists had made," my first thought wold be that these are statements by scientists taken out of context by creationists. They have a sort of reputation for quote-mining.
Also, no, the fish doesn't need to "evolve" a whole new strand of DNA. Mutations take place on a DNA strand, where the genes are that code for proteins. I'm sorry if I'm not expressing myself clearly. Read the wikipedia articles and maybe you will understand what I mean.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Thanks for letting me know about the "reply" button.I put the info about the rabbits because Mr. Bound had commented on it, and I originally mentioned rabbits as an example of something I didn't think related to complexity...so yeah, I'm finding that defining complexity is a lot more complex then I thought... I've got some reading up on stuff to do.

If you get your hands on the rest of that paper let me know.Special thanks to Rroman and loudmouth for being so constructive and helpful.Gatta run to class again, this is going to be a crazy busy week for me.

I was looking at wikipedia under genes and the chart at the bottom looks like it says plants have more base pairs than humans.Gene - WikipediaCould someone please explain?