Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adding information to the genome.
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(2)
Message 61 of 280 (532452)
10-23-2009 1:26 PM


Look, Ma! I'm adding information!
Look, you want a situation where "information" can be added. Look up polyploidy and then find out its effect on plants. Then take a look at the salsify plant.
You keep arguing that you can't add information to the genome. What you have done is simplified the problem to such an extreme that you ignore other relevant information. First off, if you are talking about the full set of chromosomes in a gamete, then I have news for you - one gamete is only part of what non-haploid organisms need. Non-haploid organisms, such as humans, need more than one set of chromosomes in order to develop; the development of many organisms require more than a single set of the genome. Some organisms need two. That means that you can add information to the development of an organism by increasing the number of chromosomes used in development. We call that polyploidy. For instance, there are species of animals, including humans, where polyploidy can occur, thus adding information to the development of the organism. And polyploidy is very common in plants, as I'm sure any botanist could tell you. In fact, polyploidy in plants may be a contributing factor in the speciation in plants. The salsify plant is just one example.
In short, there are many more factors to the development of an organism and adding information through extra chromosomes to influence the development of an organism is not only possible, it happens quite a bit in plants.
In addition, the complexity of an organism bears no relation to the size of the genome. The human, a more complex organism, has 3,200,000,000 base pairs while the lowly amoeba has a whooping 670,000,000,000 base pairs.
Ironically, while the creationist principal may be sound; that is, the evolution from some single-cell organism to human may have resulted in a net decrease in the size of the genome, the reasoning behind that principle is not. This, of course, is purely speculation on my part and should be taken with multiple grains of salt.
To sum up, adding "information" to the development of the creature is not only possible; it happens often. Speciation through this addition may occur and actually has occurred based on numerous observations of plants of which I have mentioned the salsify plant. And the addition of information is not the only way speciation, and ultimately evolution, can occur. I think the argument you need to make from now on is how the addition, maintenance, or deletion to the factors that affect an organism's development do not cause evolution to occur.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : Title

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 62 of 280 (532464)
10-23-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Kaichos Man
10-23-2009 6:44 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
Oh dear.
Your lack of scientific background is showing, Kaichos. Find some scientific papers on something you haven't discarded without knowing about, and have a read. The style you're bizarrely mocking is standard scientific style.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 6:44 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:08 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 63 of 280 (532549)
10-23-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Kaichos Man
10-23-2009 6:44 AM


The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
Hi Kaichos Man
Message 56: You, and Mr Jack, and RADZ, fail to see the point of the humour. It's not that Darwin got it wrong. It's that this scientist decided to make an editorial point about the theory and used, as it turned out, a very poor example to do so.
I don't know if you're old enough to have been exposed to Monty Python, but it's in the same vein as:
"They said I was mad to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it anyway- just to show them!...it sank into the swamp...
Curiously, Monty Python does not qualify as biological information to support a position, which leaves you looking like the Black Knight.
Actually, I find it quite amusing that all you can do is make a poor attempt at mockery rather than present even half of an argument or evidence that actually would support your position. That was the implication of my subtitle - in case you missed it - he who laughs first is not going to be the one who laughs last, and in this case it appears you have egg on your face.
Oh dear. He's got the proto-mammal suckling an egg on her hair follicle.
Curiously, you don't seem to be aware how permeable egg shells are, especially non-avian eggs. The mammal egg shell is just a semi-permeable membrane during pregnancy. The eggs of monotremes are more like reptile and amphibian eggs - also semi-permeable membranes.
Platypus - Wikipedia
quote:
... The eggs develop in utero for about 28 days with only about 10 days of external incubation (in contrast to a chicken egg, which spends about 1 day in tract and 21 days externally).[37] After laying her eggs, the female curls around them. The incubation period is separated into three parts. In the first, the embryo has no functional organs and relies on the yolk sac for sustenance. The yolk is absorbed by the developing young.[47] During the second, the digits develop, and in the last, the egg tooth appears.[48]
The newly hatched young are vulnerable, blind, and hairless, and are fed by the mother's milk. Although possessing mammary glands, the Platypus lacks teats. Instead, milk is released through pores in the skin. There are grooves on her abdomen that form pools of milk, allowing the young to lap it up.[3][36] After they hatch, the offspring are suckled for three to four months. ...
Gosh, there's those skin pores becoming mammary glands used for lactation again ... and amazingly these pores are inside the brood pouch for these animals. Who could have predicted that!
"Appears to be". Uh-huh.
Yes, that is what the evidence shows: mammals have mammary glands, marsupials have mammary glands, monotremes have mammary glands. The evidence at the cellular level shows that these are of similar development, developed from the same basic cells, rather that convergent evolution with other types of cells being adapted for this purpose. The evidence of the molecules (as pointed out by Mr.Jack in Message 40 and unrefuted by you) is that the same molecules are adapted to produce the lactose. The article also states that "disaccharide lactose (galactose β1—4 glucose) is contained in all milks, except for those of some marine mammals." This argues for common ancestry of all these organisms, and thus one can logically conclude from the evidence that "Lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive feature that pre-dates the origin of mammals."
Oh dear, an hypothesis.
Yes, an explanation for the evidence. In science you start with evidence, and then form a logical hypothesis based on the evidence, and then move on to testing that hypothesis. An hypothesis that has been tested is called a theory, so in this instance he is clearly stating that this is an untested explanation of the facts at this time.
Oh good. Cogent. We can relax.
Cogency alert!
Let's hope it's cogent.
Yes, cogent.
Cogent Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
-adjective
Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing: a cogent argument. See Synonyms at valid.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
In other words logical and supported by evidence, rather than an ad hoc comment with little real information. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find an example of a cogent comment in your posts to use here, as they seem to be information free. Instead I have to look at posts like Message 44 for a good example:
A man who didn't know about genes, didn't know about the molecular basis for tissue differentiation, didn't know about the existence of control genes, or how they work, didn't know about the chemicals involved in lactation - and so ad nauseum - didn't get his ideas about the details right? I'm staggered.
Notice the reference to evidence and the things that we now know about evolution in general and lactation in specific.
Amazing! 200 million year old fossils, and not only can they tell that they secreted stuff, they even know what was in it!
Yes, it is amazing what you can deduct from the evidence, rather than just pretend to know. For instance, the same article goes on to discuss just the 200 million year old fossil evidence that supports this conclusion:
quote:
The evolution of the casein family of milk proteins in particular would provide calcium, phosphate and protein to hatchlings. Fossil records suggest that caseins were present during the Triassic, because the extensive bone and tooth development evident in the relevant species at stages before independent feeding would have required delivery of ample calcium. Given this evolutionary scenario, the composition of mammary secretions during early lactation in monotremes and marsupials is likely to be similar to that of the primitive milk of mammalian predecessors
Bold for emphasis.
Hmm. You know, I'm starting to like Darwin's version more and more...
Curiously, reality in general, and lactation in particular, are completely unaffected by your opinion, or your likes and dislikes.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : predictions
Edited by RAZD, : hypothesis

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 6:44 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4489 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 64 of 280 (532639)
10-25-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Blue Jay
10-23-2009 11:20 AM


Re: Addition of Information
So, you agree that information can be added, as long as other information is taken away simultaneously?
No. I'm saying that if information is added, and other information is taken away simultaneously, then there's no nett increase in information.
And, you also realize that this requires every mutation that increases information to be accompanied by a simultaneous mutation that decreases information to the same or greater extent, right?
No. See above.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 10-23-2009 11:20 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 10-25-2009 7:32 PM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 72 by Izanagi, posted 10-25-2009 10:11 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4489 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 65 of 280 (532640)
10-25-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Jack
10-23-2009 2:19 PM


Re: laugh first think second?
The style you're bizarrely mocking is standard scientific style
No, it's standard evolution style. It would be an embarrassment to any other field of science.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Jack, posted 10-23-2009 2:19 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 10-25-2009 2:38 PM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 69 by Larni, posted 10-25-2009 3:42 PM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2009 1:25 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4489 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 66 of 280 (532645)
10-25-2009 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
10-23-2009 8:23 PM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
and amazingly these pores are inside the brood pouch for these animals. Who could have predicted that!
So Darwin was right? And the evolutionist scientist I quoted was wrong?
"disaccharide lactose (galactose 1—4 glucose) is contained in all milks, except for those of some marine mammals." This argues for common ancestry of all these organisms
And must therefore, logically, argue against common ancestry for those marine mammals.
Fossil records suggest that caseins were present during the Triassic, because the extensive bone and tooth development evident in the relevant species at stages before independent feeding would have required delivery of ample calcium.
What fossil records "suggest" is that caseins were present. That they were present in mammary secretion is pure conjecture, or to use your own words:
an untested explanation of the facts at this time
But don't worry. It'll soon turn up in a biology textbook near you as "fact".
Curiously, reality in general, and lactation in particular, are completely unaffected by your opinion, or your likes and dislikes.
Yeah. Ain't it the truth.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2009 8:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2009 12:55 PM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2009 1:22 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 67 of 280 (532665)
10-25-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Kaichos Man
10-25-2009 8:27 AM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
Hi Kaichos Man, still content free?
Message 42
So Darwin was right? And the evolutionist scientist I quoted was wrong?
They could both be wrong.
Darwin could be wrong about the evolutionary beginning of the mammary gland ("evolved from cutaneous glands that were contained within the brood pouches in which some fish and other marine species keep their eggs") rather than later in the process of descent from common ancestors (ie within a subclade of tetrapods that were ancestors to mammalia), while being essentially correct about it being developed from skin glands (of which we now know there are several types) and from the first appearance inside brood pouches (although the evidence for this is not clear).
Likewise the scientist could be wrong about it not evolving inside a brood pouch (again the evidence is unclear on this), but being essentially correct that the mammary gland did not evolve from a pouch as a whole.
It also does not matter who is right or that either is wrong about this specific issue, as the fact remains that lactation evolved as a means of improving the survivability of the young, and thus would be selected, nor does this alter the fact that the modification of molecules to be able to produce the chemicals in milk show the presence of information not existing in previous ancestral fossils (teeth and bone development) or in other species that have descended from more ancient common ancestors.
In science it is not important WHO is correct, as WHAT is correct is the important part. What is correct is that lactation has evolved from chemical modification and adaptation of skin glands.
Thus when you focus on who is wrong you are not addressing the issue of what is correct. What is correct is that information has been added.
What fossil records "suggest" is that caseins were present.
Curiously, once again you display a flair for disingenuous clutching at straws that turn into smoke when one looks further:
Casein - Wikipedia
quote:
Casein (from Latin caseus "cheese") is the predominant phosphoprotein (αS1, αS2, β, κ) that accounts for nearly 80% of proteins in cow milk and cheese.
So whether it was developed enough to be called "milk" is irrelevant to the fact that the primary ingredient in milks in this day and age is casein, and that this protein was not available for the growth and development of young prior to this, as demonstrated by the fossil evidence.
That they were present in mammary secretion is pure conjecture, or to use your own words:
No, not pure conjecture, pure conjecture would not be based on evidence.
or to use your own words:
an untested explanation of the facts at this time
And because it explains the known evidence it is not pure conjecture.
But don't worry. It'll soon turn up in a biology textbook near you as "fact".
THAT is pure conjecture. Notice the difference? Lactation supported by evidence, your assertion supported by nothing but your opinion.
Curiously, reality in general, and lactation in particular, are completely unaffected by your opinion, or your likes and dislikes.
Yeah. Ain't it the truth.
And amusingly, you keep eagerly demonstrating the truth that your opinion is worthless in discussing reality.
We still see that the evidence shows that lactation evolved in the mammalalia lineage, and that prior to this evolution casein was not evident in the growth and development of young.
Thus lactation provided a benefit from modification of molecules and adaptation of existing elements for a new use. This means that either (a) information was added to the genome or (b) the concept of "information" is useless in describing what can and cannot occur through evolution.
The thesis of this thread is thereby demonstrated.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:27 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-26-2009 9:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 68 of 280 (532671)
10-25-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Kaichos Man
10-25-2009 8:08 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
No, it's standard evolution style. It would be an embarrassment to any other field of science.
Saying things doesn't make them so, Kaichos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:08 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 69 of 280 (532679)
10-25-2009 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Kaichos Man
10-25-2009 8:08 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
No, it's standard evolution style. It would be an embarrassment to any other field of science.
No. Every piece of research follows this method. The lit review and writing the intro are the most fun things about research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:08 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 10-25-2009 7:59 PM Larni has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 70 of 280 (532692)
10-25-2009 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kaichos Man
10-25-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Addition of Information
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, you agree that information can be added, as long as other information is taken away simultaneously?
No. I'm saying that if information is added, and other information is taken away simultaneously, then there's no nett increase in information.
Um... how is this any different from what I just said?
I'm still waiting for your mechanism for explaining how to make this happen.
{AbE: the word "net" only has one "t" in it.}
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition---marked with { }

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:06 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 71 of 280 (532694)
10-25-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Larni
10-25-2009 3:42 PM


Re: laugh first think second?
Hi, Larni.
Larni writes:
The lit review and writing the intro are the most fun things about research.
I'm a "Results" and "Discussion" kind of guy, myself.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Larni, posted 10-25-2009 3:42 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Larni, posted 10-26-2009 6:35 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(2)
Message 72 of 280 (532710)
10-25-2009 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Kaichos Man
10-25-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Addition of Information
No. I'm saying that if information is added, and other information is taken away simultaneously, then there's no nett increase in information.
Ok, maybe you didn't see my post so I'll explain again. For non-haploid organisms, a single set of the genome is inadequate for development. For instance, humans, a diploid organism, need two sets of chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father.
Now you have been arguing for a net increase in information in the genome. But there are other development factors that you have been neglecting where a net increase in information is possible. Polyploidy is a net increase in information in developing an organism, specifically, the addition of chromosomes. For animals, polyploidy doesn't occur often, but it does occur. In humans, polyploidy typically causes a miscarriage. In cases where the pregnancy results in birth, the infant doesn't survive very long.
Polyploidy in plants, on the the other hand, occurs very often. There have been instances where polyploidy directly resulted in the evolution of another species of plant, the salsify plant. I have therefore shown you a case where a net increase of information in the development factors of an organism has happened.
Also important is that there is no correlation between the complexity of an organism and the size of the genome. The human genome has less base pairs than the genome of the amoeba. So to evolve a population of organisms, a net increase in information isn't necessary - only that the genome, or any of the other development factors change in some fashion.
So your argument about a net increase in information looks at only a part of what evolution is. The example of one gene being inserted and another taken out is also part of the evolutionary process because change has occurred. The deletion of a particular sequence without any addition is also part of the evolutionary process because change has occurred. Even adding an extra sex chromosome to an organism is part of the evolutionary process because change has occurred. So if you can ever prove that changes to organisms don't happen, then you can disprove evolution. But disproving that there can be no net increase in information does nothing significant to disprove evolution as a whole.
ABE: A couple of human disorders resulting from chromosomal duplication (adding information to a particular chromosome without a deletion elsewhere) are Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease. These are exact cases of net information gain that you have been requesting. A portion of the chromosome is duplicated without deletions elsewhere.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:06 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2009 10:39 PM Izanagi has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 73 of 280 (532714)
10-25-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Izanagi
10-25-2009 10:11 PM


Re: Addition of Information
Hi Izanagi,
But disproving that there can be no net increase in information does nothing significant to disprove evolution as a whole.
The IDist argument about increase in information is born from the old creationist argument about changes in species only showing loss and decay from the original created "kinds" due to the introduction of disease and death after the "fall" -- ie a purely religious origin -- taken as the basis for a pseudoscientific position (ie pure conjecture). The argument comes full circle when religious FUNDIE/s (fundamentalists under numerous delusions involving evolution) take the ID position as a new gospel.
The fact that there is so much evidence of loss and recovery that it becomes virtually self-evident that either gain in information does occur, or that the concept of information used by the IDcreationists is useless in predicting any restriction on evolution.
Polyploidy in plants, on the the other hand, occurs very often.
And result in virtually instant speciation. One known example in mammals is (not really a) rat in Argentina:
http://users.rcn.com/...ranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html
quote:
Polyploidy is much rarer in animals. It is found in some insects, fishes, amphibians, and reptiles. Until recently, no polyploid mammal was known. However, the 23 September 1999 issue of Nature reports that a polyploid (tetraploid; 4n = 102) rat has been found in Argentina.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Izanagi, posted 10-25-2009 10:11 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Izanagi, posted 10-25-2009 10:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 74 of 280 (532715)
10-25-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
10-25-2009 10:39 PM


Re: Addition of Information
The IDist argument about increase in information is born from the old creationist argument about changes in species only showing loss and decay from the original created "kinds" due to the introduction of disease and death after the "fall" -- ie a purely religious origin
Which is a bit ridiculous to me because it still seems like they accept evolution except they don't accept the genome can "add information."
The fact that there is so much evidence of loss and recovery that it becomes virtually self-evident that either gain in information does occur, or that the concept of information used by the IDcreationists is useless in predicting any restriction on evolution.
I wanted to show that "information gain" does occur, so I threw chromosomal duplication into the fray. Since it has been evidenced, chromosomal duplication seems like the perfect argument against Kaichos' argument.
And result in virtually instant speciation. One known example in mammals is (not really a) rat in Argentina
I knew of the rat, although I didn't read too much into it. I appreciate the link though; I'll take a look at it when I can.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2009 10:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 75 of 280 (532724)
10-26-2009 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Kaichos Man
10-25-2009 8:27 AM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
So Darwin was right? And the evolutionist scientist I quoted was wrong?
Mmm ... was an evolutionist right, or was an evolutionist right? This is a serious question that we all must ponder.
I'm going to guess that an evolutionist was right. I have found that this is the way to bet.
And must therefore, logically, argue against common ancestry for those marine mammals.
That is an interesting use of the word "logically". I'm going to giggle about it repeatedly over the coming hours.
What fossil records "suggest" is that caseins were present. That they were present in mammary secretion is pure conjecture ...
If the fossil record suggests something, then it is not pure conjecture.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:27 AM Kaichos Man 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