PROOF against evolution

quote:

---

2LTD has nothing whatsoever to say about information. Why do you think it does?

---

Some think it does.

quote:

---

"Boltzman's entropy concept has the same mathematical roots as the information concept; the computing of the probabilities of sorting objects into bins - a set of N into subsets of sizes n. By computing how many ways there are to assemble a particular arrangement of matter and energy in a physical system, he arrived at the expression of entropy (S), the statistical mechanical expression of the thermodynamic concept

​

S = -k [summation i] Pi ln Pi

​

where k is Boltzman's constant (3.2983 x 10^-24 calories / C[degree]).

​

Shannon's and Boltzman's equations are formally similar. S and I have opposite signs, but otherwise differ only by their scaling factors; they convert to one another by the simple formula S = - (k ln 2) I. Thus, an entropy unit equals -k ln 2 bits." (The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life, Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999, p9)

---

quote:

---

And everytime there's a copying error with DNA thereby adding information (which happens all the time, including in your own body), it's just chemistry.

---

Wait a minute....are you saying that you believe that DNA contains information? How come you aren't over in the other thread helping me in my "debate" against Peter?

quote:

---

In the lingo, a strand of DNA is made up of exons (coding bits, in effect bits of genes) and introns (non-coding bits: ‘intruders’ is my mnemonic for which is which ).

---

Another way to remember the difference is that EXons are EXpressed, and INTrons are INTervening sequences.Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.

quote:

---

And we know why it is these ‘introns’ aren’t used. A lot of it is just nonsense code, that does not translate into any amino acid (the building-blocks of proteins).

---

That seems to me to be either tautological or confusing. Theoretically, any triplet of DNA nucleotides could be copied into an mRNA codon and then translated into an amino acid, or represent termination (a "stop" "punctuation symbol"). There are only 3 out of 64 codons that function as termination codons and it is just these 3 that are called nonsense codons (because they don't code for an amino acid).Your statement makes it sound as if introns aren;t used because they are composed almost entirely of repeats of the 3 specific DNA triplets that would correspond to "stop". If that is your intention, do you have support?

quote:

---

A lot more of it is ‘pseudogenes’: these are made up of the same sequences that form real genes, but in one way or another they are broken, lacking for example the bits of code that say ‘start’ or ‘stop’. So these don’t get used to make a body either.

---

Well, saying that pseudogenes "are made up of the same sequences that form the real genes" is misleading. A typical method of pseudogene creation is by duplication followed by divergence. A gene gets duplicated, resulting in there being two exact copies. Assuming this is a protein coding gene, there would be a "backup" copy should one gene get "mutated". And that's what frequently happens. In a simplified scenario, with two copies, functional constraint on both is reduced (not eliminated) - mutations can accumulate in both as long as at least one of them remains functional. Once one of them accumulates enough mutations to where it loses its former function, (in most cases) it is then a nonfunctional pseudogene (it is theoretically possible that the mutations it accumulated actually allow it to perform a related function). The other version becomes the only copy of the original gene and full functional constraint applies to it (this prevents it from deviating any further than it already has, if any: it may even stear the sequence back towards its original sequence, if the original was more fit than the present one). Now, being theoretically completely useless to the cell, there is NO functional constraint on the pseudogene so mutations can accumulate completely unchecked: in other words, natural selection plays no role in rejecting mutations in the pseudogene so they have free reign...ANYWHERE IN THE PSEUDOGENE.

quote:

---

Chimpanzees have one more pair of chromosomes (the chunks that DNA is clustered into) than we humans have -- they have 48 to our 46. A problem for evolution? No, some stong evidence for it. Our chromosome 2 (they are numbered according to size; this is our second-largest) is remarkably similar to two separate chimpanzee ones. Evolution therefore suggests that, in our lineage, the two have fused to form our single chromosome 2, hence us having one fewer pairs.

​

...

​

Our chromosome 2 is unambiguously two ape chromosomes stuck together. The alternative -- that God made it that way -- would seem to mean that God deliberately put useless (ie they have no business being there at all!) telomere sequences into the middle of a chromosome. A chromosome that just happens to be pretty well identical to two separate ape ones.

---

I feel that is the single strongest scientific evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor of chimps. Of course, your other point, that humans and chimps share "98%" of their DNA doesn't hurt!But, I believe the actual figure is >99% (I realize that 98% is not your figure), which would make the case even stronger.However, I would like to ask a question. You seem to be claiming that the "98%" similarity between chimp and human DNA includes ALL of the DNA, including so-called junk DNA. I am not sure that is correct. For example, the value "98%" was quoted way before the HGP had completed, and I don't believe the chimp genome has been determined yet. I think the "98%" value is based primarily on protein-coding regions, and on a large number of genes, not all of them. For an explanatory example of the general method I think the number is based on...suppose scientists determined the sequences of just 1,000 protein-coding genes in humans and also the seqeuences of the same 1,000 genes in chimps, then compared them, finding that large sample of protein-coding genes to be "98%" identical in sequence. If this is the case, the junk DNA would not be involved in the calculation.Anyone know the actual method?[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

quote:

---

DNAunion: Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.

---

quote:

---

sfs: I don't know how they were originally defined (since I have no formal training in genetics), but intron and exon are routinely used to describe DNA in current genetics literature.

---

You’re right. (Also, I wasn't talking about historically: "related", with a "d", was a typo: I meant relate but didn't go back and proofread my post very well: so I might have confused things even more).Exons and introns are terms that relate directly to RNA since for a primary RNA transcript, EXons are EXpressed sequences (they remain in the RNA after splicing has occurred) and INtrons are INtervening sequences (they are excised from the primary RNA transcript). Off the top of my head, I thought that referring to the DNA regions that map to RNA exons and introns as being actual exons and introns was informal, since the excision of introns and splicing together of exons occurs in RNA, not in DNA (and thus, supposedly, the terms would technically refer only to RNA). However, I checked and found I was wrong: the terms exons and introns refer to either the RNA or the DNA regions, without the latter being informal usage.

quote:

---

DNAunion: Another way to remember the difference is that EXons are EXpressed, and INTrons are INTervening sequences.

​

Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.

---

quote:

---

Mammuthus: To nitpick, introns are also "expressed" i.e. transcribed, but are spliced out as a posttranscriptional modification.

---

Sorry, but I’m going to have to deny your nitpick.I didn’t say introns weren’t transcribed, I said they weren’t expressed. It is clear from my last sentence in the quote that I am quite aware that introns are found in RNA (having been transcribed from corresponding DNA regions, of course). So it’s clear that what you meant by expressed is not what I meant by expressed: hence, nitpick rejected.In fact, as I will show below, biology texts often times state what I did: that exons are expressed while introns are intervening sequences.But first, let’s also look at the overall context. A primary RNA transcript has regions that are EXcised and regions that are left IN. So obviously, EXons are the regions that are EXcised and INtrons are the regions left IN. Right? Wrong. That’s completely backwards. The original poster was offering a way for someone to remember whether exons or introns are excised: I offered another way, one that is often times mentioned in biology texts. So the context is that we were after a simple way to remember which-is-which, and, EXons are EXpressed and INtrons are INtervening sequences: that works, and is used by many biology texts.

quote:

---

The noncoding regions within the gene are called introns (intervening sequences), as opposed to exons (expressed sequences). (bold in original, Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R Berg, & Diana W Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p278-279)

---

quote:

---

Such nucleotide segments have been called intervening sequences, contained within split genes. Those DNA sequences that are not represented in the final mRNA product are also called introns (int for intervening), and those retained and expressed are called exons ( ex for expressed). (Concepts of Genetics: Fifth Edition, William S Klug & Michael R Cummings, Prentice Hall, 1997, p344)

---

PS: Thanks for the additional info on human vs. chimp DNA similarity that included indels.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-19-2004]

I thought everyone gave up on this ridiculous "refutation" of evolution...a "refutation" that is itself completely refuted.

quote:

---

"(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex, and continually evolve toward greater perfection. Just as inorganic matter becomes successively more ordered and perfect (via the Big Bang and stellar evolution), so living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence (via species evolution). The Second Law of Thermodynamics devastates this theory."

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-06-2004]

This quote from the linked-to Creationist page is just ridiculous.

quote:

---

"THE MORE TIME, THE LESS LIKELIHOOD*G. Wald, in "The Origin of Life," in the book, Physics and Chemistry of Life, says "Does time perform miracles?" He then explains something that you and I will want to remember: If the probability of a certain event occurring is only 1/1000 (one chance in a thousand), and we have sufficient time to repeat the attempts many times, the probability that it could happen would continue to remain only one in a thousand. This is because probabilities have no memory!

---

Wrong.First, let's find an event that has about the same probability as that used by the Creationist. The probability of throwing a Yahtzee in a single roll of 5 dice is 1 in 6^4, or 1 in 1296 (the first die can be any number: the next four must match it with a 1 in 6 chance each). That's close enough.Now, no matter how many times you have thrown the dice in the past, on your ONE CURRENT attempt the probability of your throwing a Yahtzee is 1 in 1296. In that sense it does continue to be 1 in 1296, but the Creationist statement does not say that...it says "the probability that it could happen would continue to remain only one in a thousand", which is wrong. The more times you attempt to roll a Yahtzee the better your likelihood of success...that's self evident. Roll 5 dice a thousand times and you more likely than not to hit a Yahtzee somewhere in there: the probability of its occurring doesn't remain 1 in 1296.But wait, the Creationist argument gets much worse...

quote:

---

"But *Wald goes further. He explains that if the event is attempted often enough,the total probability of obtaining it would keep reducing!"

---

That's just plain stupid.If what they claim were true, then the more times someone rolled the dice the LESS LIKELY they would be to hit a Yahtzee sometime during their attempts.

quote:

---

"If it is tried a thousand times and does not even occur once, and then it is tried thousands of more times and never occurs,then the chance of it occurring keeps reducing. If it is tried a million timesand still has not occurred,then the possibility of it occurring has reduced to less than one chance in a million!"

---

Wrong. This Creationist has his probability theory all messed up. It appears he has switched topics but pretends to be sticking to just one.If one is calculating an EMPIRICAL probability, then sure, the more times one attempts to do something and fails the lower the resulting EMPIRICAL probability. But the Creationist already assigned a probability of 1 in 1000 to the event under discussion, so what the heck is this guy trying to do? He makes no sense.

quote:

---

"The point here is that time never works in favor of an event that cannot happen!"

---

More stupidity. Nothing he said up to this point supports his final statement, which supposedly summarizes the "evidences" he just presented. Our Creationist has managed only to lie to his readers by mixing separate ideas that don't belong together into what he pretends to be a coherent whole.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-08-2004]