Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:36 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   Increases in Genetic Information
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 151 of 193 (698162)
05-03-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Just being real
05-03-2013 11:27 AM


Nuclear contamination?
It is a word that is often (even by those in the professional field) incorrectly applied to situations such as, where nuclear contamination produces deformities

Define nuclear contamination, please.

Because it appears that this is a point of simple denial on your part. 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.

So exactly what is it that you consider to be a misuse of the term mutation? What constitutes nuclear contamination?

For a true mutation to occur that demonstrates the mechanism of macro evolution, the DNA would have to somehow reorganize into a genetic sequence that has never been known before now

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. In my opinion, this 'requirement' is simply to allow disallowing some mutations that simply augment a currently known behavior. More simple denial.

You seem to want mutant to mean the cartoon version of mutant as applied to the X-men.


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 145 by Just being real, posted 05-03-2013 11:27 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Just being real, posted 05-09-2013 2:21 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 193 (698163)
05-03-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jbozz21
05-03-2013 11:20 AM


So that is not new information just old genes that don't get turned off.

How would the not turning off of genes get passed on to offspring?


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 144 by jbozz21, posted 05-03-2013 11:20 AM jbozz21 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6680
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 153 of 193 (698181)
05-03-2013 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Just being real
05-03-2013 11:28 AM


JBR writes:


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.


Try this:

http://www.nature.com/...30314/srep01456/full/srep01456.html


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Just being real, posted 05-03-2013 11:28 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 154 of 193 (698213)
05-04-2013 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jbozz21
05-03-2013 11:20 AM


jbozz21 writes:

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.

Yes, you understand correctly.

So that is not new information just old genes that don't get turned off.

Any mutation represents new information. When a DNA codon changes from, say, ATG to CTG, that is new information that wasn't there before.

Just to provide a couple details about adult lactose digestion, the T-13910 mutation appears in the MCM6 regulatory gene that controls the activity level of the LCT gene that controls production of the LPH enzyme that enables lactose metabolization (http://books.google.com/books?id=DdBJ6jCf8KgC&pg=PA1133&l...).

Obviously a change from one state (lactose intolerance) to another (lactose digestion) requires a novel change to the information underlying the process, but I think I understand why you're dismissing this as not new information. Your thinking is that lactose digestion is not new, that it's just an already existing process that with a certain mutation continues on into adulthood. You want an entire new process or organ or body part to appear before you're willing to concede that new information is involved.

But very simple mutations like the SNP's (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, i.e., a change to a single nucleotide) cannot create entire new processes, organs or body parts. Evolution is a gradual process where tiny mutations accumulate over time to create large-scale changes. It would take many, many mutations and many, many generations of selection for a new process, organ or body part to appear. At no point during this lengthy process would you be able to say that a brand new process, organ or body part appeared between one generation and next. Only the tiniest of changes can occur between generations. To create large-scale change requires many generations. You can only tell that something novel has appeared by comparing creatures that are separated by thousands and thousands of generations.

But each generation receives new information, because every mutation, even very simple ones, represents new information.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jbozz21, posted 05-03-2013 11:20 AM jbozz21 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jbozz21, posted 05-04-2013 4:15 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 155 of 193 (698219)
05-04-2013 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Just being real
05-03-2013 11:28 AM


Just being real writes:

And I explained in post 28 why observation is important in this situation. Perhaps you missed it.

No, I didn't miss it. Perhaps you missed the rebuttals? But anything worth rebutting is worth rebutting again, so what the heck.

"Specified information" is a term made up by creationists, specifically William Dembski. Let us know when he comes up with a working definition that allows "specified information" to be measured and quantified. Until then his only contribution was to make up technical-sounding synonyms for "things people can do."

JBR in Message 28 writes:

In order for it to swing back in favor of evolution we need to observe at least one process in which specified information forms by purely natural unguided processes.

Mutations. In other news, sun rises this morning.

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.

Returning to your current message:

And the main point I want to stress is that just shrugging your shoulders and saying, “I don’t believe in an intelligent designer therefore that is not even an option,” is not a valid reason for ignoring the necessity of observation here.

I don't think anyone here (other than creationists) shrugs their shoulders at evidence, but we have as much evidence for an intelligent designer as we do for unicorns.

But in any case, we've also provided examples of advantageous mutations.

I’m sorry was there one I missed that I haven’t responded to?

If you're sure you responded to all of them then I'll just take your word for it, but that has nothing to do with my point. We presented evidence of advantageous mutations, and you presented your excuses for why you're ignoring that evidence.

Hmmm, I must say I have difficulty believing that anyone began a scientific study on human lactose persistence 5000 years ago...

Well, now we're back to where we started, with me pondering whether your continued requests for examples has something to do with your definition of "observation." Again, if eyewitness evidence is the only type acceptable to you then there's very little knowledge on any subject you should accept, including that the Bible was written by God or that there was a flood 4500 years ago.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Just being real, posted 05-03-2013 11:28 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Just being real, posted 05-09-2013 2:21 AM Percy has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 156 of 193 (698241)
05-04-2013 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Just being real
05-02-2013 9:00 PM


Observation of past events in the present.
Just being real writes:

That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to establish Bluegenes. 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. Not an example where we have observed natural selection merely select already existing genes within the gene pool. So far no one has ever managed to present me with one. Not a single one.

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"?

Mutations that have happened in the past can be observed on genomes.

Just being real writes:

bluegenes writes:

Information enters population groups from the environment.

Huh? Every “bedtime story” I’ve ever been told about evolution has the information building up by the process of random mutations (in the genetic code) and natural selection, selecting those traits which give the organism an advantage to survive over the others.

And that last bit is how information enters population groups from their environments.

JBR writes:

I’ve never heard anyone claim that the environment actually puts the information in there. If you have some new scientific theory on this, I’d love to hear it.

It's called the theory of natural selection. But it's not new, and I can't take credit for it.

JBR writes:

I have a question for you to consider when it comes to claiming that the antifreeze gene is an example of added new information to the DNA code. If two species in any order are compared, who determines which of the two species are the oldest and possesses the genes of the original configuration? This is important because once again, how do we know the antifreeze gene may not have been the original, and the others without the gene aren’t the result of loss of information?

Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflict.

The paper answers your question. Geneticists know how to distinguish duplications from deletions. The original anti-freeze gene is on an insertion. Then there are multiple copies of it on tandem duplications. The sequence of mutations involved are traceable. The effects of past events can be observed in the present.

Just being real writes:

Did someone invent time travel and go back to take samples of the original?

When you go out of your house in the morning, and observe that the ground is soaking wet and the trees are dripping, you can figure out that it has rained during the night. Have you invented time travel in making an indirect observation of a past event? Is time travel necessary in order to convict a murderer on forensic evidence beyond all reasonable doubt? Is time travel necessary to infer a past river from a dried river bed?

History can be observed on genomes.

Just being real writes:

Rather it is bacteria, fossils, or fish, if you are trying to demonstrate “A” is related to “Z” there must be at least one observed path somewhere to show relationship is even possible.

You can look at the genomes of two species and see that the differences which are at fixation between them are caused by exactly the same processes that cause the differences between different breeds of the same species and different individuals within a species. If you can get the big roarer cats (lions ,tiger, leopard, jaguar) from a common ancestral group, as the O.P. suggests, then you can get lions and domestic cats from a common ancestral group, and cats and dogs from a common ancestral group. There's nothing to stop the quantity of differences that separate them happening. If you think common descent is impossible, you need to tell us about this unknown mechanism of yours which limits the quantity of mutations that can go to fixation in diverging population groups.

Just being real writes:

You cannot use speculated relationship to prove added information, in order to prove relationship. If you do, now you are employing circular reasoning.

A novelty in one species isn't used to show its relationship to another species which lacks that novelty. We infer close common ancestry from similarities, not differences! And you've misunderstood the fish paper. Paralogs can be identified by looking within just one species. In the paper, they show the area in which the L. dearborni insertion has happened in G. aculeatus to show what the area was probably like before the event, but that is not how they know that a duplication has taken place. It is by the sequence identity of the duplicated section. Paralogs have been observed in the genomes of all species whose genomes have been examined, and duplications occur regularly in individual organisms. The researchers trace the mutational history of the formation of the AFPIII genes from LdSAS-B.

JBR writes:

If you are trying to establish relationship with anything organic, you obviously can't observe this path over millions of years,….

You can if you know how to read history on genomes.

JBR writes:

…..so relationships between species are limited to what you “can” physically observe over relatively recent generations.

That demand for direct observation would invalidate all hypotheses on the origin of species, and all science that deals with the past. How many non-biological intelligent beings have we directly observed making genes, life, or anything else?

JBR writes:

Yes, with speciation, we have observed small changes occur. But these changes can be (in most of the cases) shown to be the result of natural selection, selecting already existing alleles, and over time a loss of information.

Alleles have to exist before they can be selected, and if by "loss of information" you mean loss of diversity, that is caused by bottlenecks and extinction events, not by speciation.

JBR writes:

The paper cited compares DNA of different species in order to conclude that fish have evolved an antifreeze protein.

That's not how they conclude it. The paper is actually about how it evolved. It did it by insertion, deletion, point mutations, and tandem duplications. All are common forms of mutation. There's no big mystery about "increases in genetic information", the subject of this thread. They do not require intelligent design, but all known intelligent designers do require them.

Just being real writes:

bluegenes writes:

No-one designed your unique genome

My unique genome is a combination of pre-existing genes from my mother and my father. I did not receive some completely new information that did not exist which gave me “spider man” abilities or the ability to see infrared light.

But you do have your own mutations, and so did your parents have theirs, some of which you will have inherited. But even without those, your uniqueness, by definition, involves very specific information, yet no-one designed you, which was my point.

JBR writes:

I thought jbozz21 did a good job of explaining what is meant, but allow me to try to simplify what I am talking about here. Imagine asking Donald Trump how he got so wealthy. If he said, “Well I started out as a wee lad with only five dollars to my name, and I opened a bank account in one bank and then I transferred all the money across town to another bank and then to another, and kept doing this, occasionally losing a penny here and a penny there, but over time I amassed my great wealth.” You would scratch your head in confusion because obviously you know that a person cannot get wealthy just moving the same money back and forth. Somewhere along the way a good deal of “new” funds has to be added to Mr. Trumps account in order for him to be so rich. Likewise you can’t start out with a simple single celled organism and claim that through millions of years of transferring the same gene pool of information back and forth, it can eventually evolve into an astrophysicist. Somewhere along the way we would have to introduce a whole lot of new genes that produce a whole lot of new and advanced phenotypes.

Dollar bills don't duplicate themselves, but genes do. You can start out with a "simple single celled" organism, and watch it evolve into strains with duplications in less than one year, if you want to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Just being real, posted 05-02-2013 9:00 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Just being real, posted 05-09-2013 2:21 AM bluegenes has responded

  
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 2058 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 157 of 193 (698242)
05-04-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Percy
05-04-2013 7:31 AM


But very simple mutations like the SNP's (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, i.e., a change to a single nucleotide) cannot create entire new processes, organs or body parts. Evolution is a gradual process where tiny mutations accumulate over time to create large-scale changes.

Thank you for admitting that. Just goes to show that evolution as a process of change from one organism to another is completely theoretical and never been observed. So it is still a completely viable theory like it always has been that evolution does not go as far as to change organisms into completely different organisms (such as fish into frog) and these organisms had to come about by a completely different means (say intelligent Creation).

In this case the mutation destroyed the genes ability to turn off the lactase producing gene. That is all that mutations do, is they destroy. They are not a process of creation. Sometimes those genes that they destroy happen to aid the organism in surviving or digesting milk sugar but over all they do not make the organism more fit. Mutations do not create anything.

Especially considering certain experiments involving bacteria and fruit flies that showed no evidence of mutations that proceeded to evolve the organism.

http://www.icr.org/article/5779/
http://creation.com/...e-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

Don't think that I am saying that mutations are not ever beneficial, under certain extenuating circumstances they can benefit an organism but it does not make the organism more fit. Most times it will make them less fit other than that it won't affect the organism. It the case of bacteria, it will keep them from not being killed by antibiotics but they cannot reproduce or metabolize as well as non mutated bacteria.
Occasionally it will be a neutral mutation, human adults that digest Lactose are not more fit than those that cannot. It just means that you can drink milk as an adult. Something that is un-necessary for people and even argued by experts as not even healthy for adults.


"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44

"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 05-04-2013 7:31 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-04-2013 6:38 PM jbozz21 has responded
 Message 160 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2013 8:40 PM jbozz21 has responded
 Message 166 by Taq, posted 05-06-2013 9:45 AM jbozz21 has responded
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 05-07-2013 7:45 AM jbozz21 has not yet responded
 Message 191 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2013 6:21 PM jbozz21 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 158 of 193 (698245)
05-04-2013 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jbozz21
05-04-2013 4:15 PM


But very simple mutations like the SNP's (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, i.e., a change to a single nucleotide) cannot create entire new processes, organs or body parts. Evolution is a gradual process where tiny mutations accumulate over time to create large-scale changes.

Thank you for admitting that.

Your welcome! Stick around, you won't believe the other incredibly obvious things I might admit. Who knows, the coming weeks might see me admit the Earth is round, the sky is blue, and rain is wet.

Seriously, did you really think people were trying to hide the fact that evolution is a gradual process? If it somehow didn't already get mentioned in this thread then that's only because since you're new here people don't yet know what you don't know.

That is all that mutations do, is they destroy.

This is almost self-evidently wrong. Let me take you through a simple thought exercise.

Let's say an ATG codon becomes CTG and that this simple point mutation destroys a creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. But another simple point mutation to this new CTG codon transforms it back to an ATG codon and restores the creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. So obviously mutations can be both beneficial and deleterious.

Mutations are random copying errors that occur at some point during the reproductive process. For this reason whatever impact they have will be random with respect to the environment. As you correctly noted, most mutations will not be beneficial. The vast majority of mutations will have no effect (there's a lot of DNA that plays little to no active role), most of the remainder will be deleterious, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of mutations will be beneficial.

But beneficial mutations tend to accumulate in a population because they confer an advantage and are selected for by natural selection.

Regarding increases in genetic information, any simple point mutation can result in an increase or decrease in information, or of course no change at all. For an example of no change in information consider the TTA and TTG codons that both code for Leucine. If a TTA codon were to experience a mutation and become TTG it would have no effect on the amount of information.

But what if an ATA codon in a stretch of non-functional DNA were to experience a mutation that changed it to an ATG codon, which is the start codon. Suddenly we have a new active region and a whole lot more information. And of course there are many other kinds of copying accidents that represent different kinds of mutations.

So most mutations, especially if they're point mutations, will have no effect, some will have tiny effects, and some will have significant effects. And of those that have an effect, most will be deleterious, but a tiny, tiny fraction will be beneficial.

So obviously an increase in genetic information that provides a selective advantage can occur and has occurred, as the examples in this thread illustrate.

By the way, lactase persistence spread through populations that had dairy skills because it provided a selective advantage. The mutation is absent in those parts of the world with no dairy background in their history.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jbozz21, posted 05-04-2013 4:15 PM jbozz21 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2013 7:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 161 by jbozz21, posted 05-04-2013 9:59 PM Percy has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 159 of 193 (698251)
05-04-2013 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
05-04-2013 6:38 PM


By the way, lactase persistence spread through populations that had dairy skills because it provided a selective advantage. The mutation is absent in those parts of the world with no dairy background in their history.

And there are several different mutations that lead to lactase persistence - at least two different ones in East Africans, both in groups with long histories of cattle farming. And these mutations are distinct from the common European one that makes us white boys tolerant of milk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-04-2013 6:38 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 160 of 193 (698252)
05-04-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jbozz21
05-04-2013 4:15 PM


That is all that mutations do, is they destroy. They are not a process of creation. Sometimes those genes that they destroy happen to aid the organism in surviving or digesting milk sugar but over all they do not make the organism more fit. Mutations do not create anything.

You are mistaken. Let me drag this post of mine out again - I have to do so every three years or thereabouts.

Ref: Nature, vol 414, pp 305-308 (2001) - "Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria" , by D Modiano et al. It's not online, to my knowledge, except by paid subscription - but I could email you a pdf.
Normal human hemoglobin ("HbA") is coded for by DNA which reads, as the 16th through 18th positions of a certain gene, GAA. This codon tells a cell's protein factory to put the amino acid glutamate at the sixth spot along the peptide that will become the beta chain of your or my hemoglobin. However, in a large number of West Africans, particularly the Mossi of Burkina Faso, this speck of DNA reads AAA. The distribution of folks with this variant looks like a bull's-eye: lots of the gene in one area of Burkina Faso, and fewer and fewer people with it as you move away from that center. The distribution is consistent with the idea that one person had the mutation about a thousand years ago, and that it spread through his or her descendants since. (Most people weren't terribly mobile in that area until nearly modern times - at least until the slave trade started.)

Now this DNA change alters that sixth amino acid on the beta chain of hemoglobin to lysine, making HbC. Most people with hemoglobin C never know it - some have mild anemia, gallstones, or spleen problems. But Modiano's paper documents that Mossi children that have both genes for HbC are 7% as likely to develop malaria as their classmates who have boring old HbA. 7% as likely to get the disease that kills a million kids in West Africa every year. And that's because their genome has the information to make a protein that has one amino acid that's different from the one in their neighbors, and in their ancestors, too, if you go back a ways. New information. Useful new information. (You will agree that being able to make two different proteins is "more information" than being able to make only one, won't you? Kids in the study that had the AC genotype - that had both HbA and HbC in their blood - had a 29% reduction in their chance of getting malaria.) New, useful, "information" from a mutation.

Now a footnote: if your DNA reads GUA instead of GAA in this position, you get a valine in position 6 and have sickle-cell trait - the result of a different mutated hemoglobin called HbS. This protects against malaria, too, but the side effects can be severe, including fatal, especially if you have both genes for HbS. This, too, is "new information" - a different protein is being made.

Living past five years old, in my estimation, will "make the organism more fit." Do you disagree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jbozz21, posted 05-04-2013 4:15 PM jbozz21 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jbozz21, posted 05-05-2013 4:01 AM Coragyps has responded

    
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 2058 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 161 of 193 (698255)
05-04-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
05-04-2013 6:38 PM


Your welcome! Stick around, you won't believe the other incredibly obvious things I might admit. Who knows, the coming weeks might see me admit the Earth is round, the sky is blue, and rain is wet.

We creationists cheer you.

Let's say an ATG codon becomes CTG and that this simple point mutation destroys a creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. But another simple point mutation to this new CTG codon transforms it back to an ATG codon and restores the creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. So obviously mutations can be both beneficial and deleterious.

Now if I could just get you to admit how this is obviously not evidence for evolution. That mutation would not create anything. It only switched back on a gene that already existed since creation. Besides, for an animal like a dog that almost never gets vitamin c, a mutation like that would kill it. Which would mean natural selection would weed out that destroyed gene and mutations would never have the ability to switch it back. For any other gene I doubt that would happen anyway.

But what if an ATA codon in a stretch of non-functional DNA were to experience a mutation that changed it to an ATG codon, which is the start codon. Suddenly we have a new active region and a whole lot more information. And of course there are many other kinds of copying accidents that represent different kinds of mutations.

I could see this causing lots of problems for the organism.

By the way, lactase persistence spread through populations that had dairy skills because it provided a selective advantage.

http://www.foodreactions.org/...ance/lactose/prevalence.html

Actually not at all, In many places like the native Americans, Asians, Thais, Bantu, and Aborigines Lactose tolerance is rare even though it exists. It did not spread. It is probably just an example of genetic drift. Could also be epi-genetics. For example Lactose tolerance stops when you stop breast feeding. But if you immediately put the child on cows milk instead of breast feeding then his whole life he drinks milk and eats dairy products then it just never gets turned off because it is always a necessity. So for white people we like to drink a lot of cows milk but Asians, Native Americans, Thais, Bantu and Aborigines. They don't drink animal milks often. There is no advantage to drinking cows milk to not drinking cows milk. Many people live long healthy lives without drinking milk as an adult. Therefore they get the opportunity to pass on those genes therefore there is no natural selection. Therefore it is not evolution and not a genetic mutation that increases fitness.


"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44

"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-04-2013 6:38 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 7:52 AM jbozz21 has not yet responded
 Message 164 by Coragyps, posted 05-05-2013 11:20 AM jbozz21 has responded

    
jbozz21
Member (Idle past 2058 days)
Posts: 46
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-19-2013


Message 162 of 193 (698273)
05-05-2013 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Coragyps
05-04-2013 8:40 PM


Living past five years old, in my estimation, will "make the organism more fit." Do you disagree?

I can agree that under these circumstances when infected with malaria yes, the people can live longer and therefore are more fit but at the same time when they are not infected they are less fit. If they moved away to a place where the threat of Malaria was not so rampant they would be less fit because they would have Anemia. The mutation made the blood cells less susceptible to the Malaria virus but, at the same time made the blood cells less able to pick up oxygen. That is not something that I would call evolutionary. That is step backwards that keeps the organism from dying but keeps it alive. This does not support the molecules to man hypothesis.

The organism has to be completely more fit or else it is going to keep getting worse and worse. If all the HbA people died off and only HbC lived when Malaria disappeared then the people would be alive but with slower metabolisms, slower brains, not progressive evolution but regressive.
And that is what I meant when I said that mutations can only destroy. This mutation partly destroyed or weakened the blood cells ability to do it's job, which is absorb and transfer oxygen. It did not create anything. It changed the already existing protein and made it less able to do it's job. You need a mutation that improves a function not weakens it.


"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." -Alma 30:44

"And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." Moses 6: 63


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2013 8:40 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Coragyps, posted 05-05-2013 11:32 AM jbozz21 has responded
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 11:28 AM jbozz21 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 163 of 193 (698284)
05-05-2013 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jbozz21
05-04-2013 9:59 PM


jbozz21 writes:

Your welcome! Stick around, you won't believe the other incredibly obvious things I might admit. Who knows, the coming weeks might see me admit the Earth is round, the sky is blue, and rain is wet.

We creationists cheer you.

Well, that's wonderful, but you're responding to the sarcasm and ignoring the point. Do you now understand that not only is evolution a gradual process, but that no one is trying to hide, or could even think of a reason to want to hide, that evolution is a gradual process? Darwin described evolution as a slow and gradual process in Origin of Species over a hundred and fifty years ago, it's not like it's a secret.

Let's say an ATG codon becomes CTG and that this simple point mutation destroys a creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. But another simple point mutation to this new CTG codon transforms it back to an ATG codon and restores the creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. So obviously mutations can be both beneficial and deleterious.

Now if I could just get you to admit how this is obviously not evidence for evolution.

Why would you think I was presenting evidence for evolution? I described an example of a process that is part of evolution, not evidence. Whyever would you think I was trying to present evidence?

I was just trying to help you understand the double-edged sword of mutation. You seemed to be under the misimpression that mutations only destroy, in your own words, "That is all that mutations do, is they destroy." So I described an example of a mutation that is deleterious in one direction and beneficial in the other. Since mutations can be both beneficial and deleterious, which you later concede anyway, the statement that mutations only destroy is incorrect.

That mutation would not create anything. It only switched back on a gene that already existed since creation.

I didn't say whether or not the mutation was in a regulatory gene or in the primary gene. It could have been either way. The original mutation could have been a mutation to a regulatory gene causing vitamin C production to be turned off, or it could have been a mutation to the primary gene destroying its ability to manufacture vitamin C. Either way the effect is the same.

The reverse mutation would have restored the ability to manufacture vitamin C. From the point of view of a creature competing in its environment it doesn't matter how, genetically, an ability is gained or lost.

I do understand your comment about a gene "existing since creation." What interests you isn't minor genetic twiddling that turns existing abilities on and off (despite their obvious impact on a creatures ability to compete). You want evidence of something like the manufacture vitamin C evolving from scratch. And you don't want indirect evidence through the analysis of DNA in various animal populations. You want direct evidence through observation of it happening in real time.

And I think we would all be ecstatic if that were possible, but it's not. The inactive GULOP pseudogene for vitamin C in humans has over 600 nucleotides*. It would take many many thousands and thousands of generations for a gene of even this modest size to evolve from scratch.

So for direct evidence of genetic change causing beneficial change we are forced to consider only what can reasonably happen in a human lifetime, which is only very tiny changes, usually SNP's (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). If we could run experiments lasting tens of thousands of years then we could produce the direct evidence you want, but we can't.

So we are forced to do detective work, analyzing the DNA of populations to produce gene histories. When we do this detective work on the human vitamin C GULOP gene we find evidence telling us that primates lost the ability of manufacture vitamin C about 63 million years ago (Wikipedia article on L-gulonolactone oxidase).

The nested hierarchy of life is also revealed by such genetic studies, something that is certainly inconsistent with some entity manufacturing life.

Besides, for an animal like a dog that almost never gets vitamin c...

Dogs and most other mammals do not need external sources of vitamin C because, unlike humans, guinea pigs and some bats, dogs never lost the ability to manufacture vitamin C. Giving dogs a working vitamin C gene and humans a broken vitamin C gene is something else inconsistent with a life manufacturing entity. But given that almost every reproductive event includes copying errors that introduce mutations into genomes, broken genes are something evolution expects.

Which would mean natural selection would weed out that destroyed gene and mutations would never have the ability to switch it back.

Yes, you're absolutely right. That's not only what evolution predicts, that's exactly what we see when we examine the human GULOP gene. Shortly after its ability to produce vitamin C was lost it probably would have been possible for simple mutations to restore that ability. But as time passed with each generation contributing more mutations the further removed the gene would have become from a functioning vitamin C gene. And the mutations the gene accumulated while inactive could not have benn selected against. This is because since the gene was inactive and had no effect, mutations in this gene could not have an effect, either.

But what if an ATA codon in a stretch of non-functional DNA were to experience a mutation that changed it to an ATG codon, which is the start codon. Suddenly we have a new active region and a whole lot more information. And of course there are many other kinds of copying accidents that represent different kinds of mutations.

I could see this causing lots of problems for the organism.

Yes, of course it would cause lots of problems for the organism. As we've been saying, most mutations are deleterious. Turning a random segment of DNA into active form could be highly devastating. But sometimes it's beneficial, and beneficial mutations are selected for, preserved, passed on to succeeding generations, propagated throughout populations.

By the way, lactase persistence spread through populations that had dairy skills because it provided a selective advantage.

http://www.foodreactions.org/...ance/lactose/prevalence.html

Actually not at all,...

Actually, yes at all. Read your own link, the section on genetics at the bottom. The populations you list that possess lactose intolerance do not have any history of cattle farming, hence there was no advantage to them for evolving lactase persistence. Any mutations for lactase persistence that might have occurred in these populations would not have been selected for.

But because of the great nutritional advantages of milk, any lactase persistence mutations experienced by human populations possessing cattle technology would have been strongly selected for.

--Percy

*Here are some links for genetic data on the human GULOP gene:

Edited by Percy, : Fix second link in list in footnote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jbozz21, posted 05-04-2013 9:59 PM jbozz21 has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 164 of 193 (698307)
05-05-2013 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jbozz21
05-04-2013 9:59 PM


Besides, for an animal like a dog that almost never gets vitamin c, a mutation like that would kill it.

Precisely. (In the case of dogs, Purina would react quickly with an expensive Vitamin C enriched dog food....) A puppy born with that mutation would presumably die of rickets.

But the ur-primate that initially passed on that mutation that prevents Vitamin C synthesis wasn't a dog, and didn't live on Eocene Dog Chow. It was a smallish tree-dwelling critter that ate fruit as part of its normal diet. It got Vitamin C from that fruit, so it didn't matter if it couldn't make its own! The same, I'm betting, applies to the ancestral bats and Guinea pigs that first showed their (distinct) mutations that disabled the Vitamin synthesis pathway - they already consumed C as part of their diet. ad they not, those individuals would have not survived to have offspring. That is how variation + natural selection works, jbozz. Charles Darwin figured this concept out about 1.5 centuries ago.

ABE. - Scurvy, not rickets....

Edited by Coragyps, : Senior moment


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jbozz21, posted 05-04-2013 9:59 PM jbozz21 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jbozz21, posted 05-07-2013 12:08 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 165 of 193 (698308)
05-05-2013 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by jbozz21
05-05-2013 4:01 AM


If they moved away to a place where the threat of Malaria was not so rampant they would be less fit because they would have Anemia. The mutation made the blood cells less susceptible to the Malaria virus but, at the same time made the blood cells less able to pick up oxygen.

I think you are conflating sickle-cell anemia - Hemoglobin S - with Hemoglobin C. If you'll reread my post, you'll find "Most people with hemoglobin C never know it - some have mild anemia, gallstones, or spleen problems." The NIH does not regard it as a major problem here in the malaria-free USA: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000572.htm

If all the HbA people died off and only HbC lived when Malaria disappeared then the people would be alive but with slower metabolisms, slower brains, not progressive evolution but regressive.

Your source for this assertion? One lone peer-reviewed paper that shows HbC folks to have "slower brains?"

You are Making Shit Up, jbozz.


"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 162 by jbozz21, posted 05-05-2013 4:01 AM jbozz21 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jbozz21, posted 05-06-2013 11:50 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019