Evolution has been Disproven

Dear Mammuthus:Evolution requires information to be added through mutation. Your experimental examples back at the end of the "Faith and Science" thread showed beneficial mutations, but the question is: did they add any genetic mutation? If certain microbes have a missing part (enzyme, I believe) that means they can't digest a certain nutritional substance, that means they'll probably have a smaller chance of survival than other microbes of the same species. Correct? That would be devolution. However, if you introduce a disease through that certain substance, the microbes without that digestive part would not contract the disease. A loss of information can be beneficial, depending on what conditions you're talking about, but it's still not evolution. Are there documented gains of information by random mutation?As for chirality, as far as I could see you addressed how organisms passed on their chirality after they were formed. But, since a DNA strand has umpteen-countless nucleotides, and they all have to be the same chirality, how could the very first DNA - the very first code of life, before specific chirality had yet existed - build itself by random chance from an environment in which left- and right-handed nucleotides are evenly distributed? One deviation from a particular handedness and the entire structure won't work. So, if random chance built the first DNA, how did it pick only those nucleotides of the right chirality?Deeply sorry for not replying again in that thread. Ah, well - we can have fun debating all this.

Perhaps you would like to explain how information can reasonably measured in these cases.You might also like to explain the basis of your assertion that the first DNA appeared before chirality was established. Given that the serious researchers are largely agreed that DNA life was preceded by RNA-based replicators (which themselves may have been preceded by simpler replicators) it does not appear to be a known fact - or even likely.

Hi defender,The Lenski group papers did not show loss of information...it showed over 20,000 generations new mutations becoming fixed in populations as they switched to a new resource. The syncytin gene is an example of a gain of information and a critical function i.e. placental formation in Old World Monkeys and the rest of the Catarhine primates but not New World Monkeys and other mammals...so yes, gain of information has been observed...and why is loss of function not evolution???As to chirality, as stated before, once you choose one path i.e. D or L, you are then constrained from then on. It is a chemical either/or...once chosen you cannot mix and match...so you had a 50:50 chance of one or the other....you also seem to be operating under the assumption that fully form genomes were the first replicators and that DNA was the first replicator both of which are unlikely given the properties of DNA relative to RNA for example.

Hi Mammuthus.As I said, populations may switch to a mutation that is beneficial. If a disease is introduced all those with an enzyme to digest it will die, but those without will prosper. Thus a loss of information can be beneficial. Thus the adaptation of microbes to a new environment does not show information gain. Information gain is achieved when a random mutation generates new data in a gene. Can you show that the Lenski experiments succeeded as a result of new information, or did the microbe populations merely switch to a latent trait or something else already in their genetic makeup?
About those early replicators. How did they replicate? Proteins are required for life, and they are included in the cell's production cycle. Proteins also require a specific chirality. Where did they come from?
Now, we know that life won't work without specific-chirality DNA. So either the previous simple replicators must have all composed themselves of nucleotides with the same chirality, or DNA evolved from a replicator with non-specific chirality, and somehow arranged every left-handed nucleotide to the opposite side by random chance.
Simpler forms before DNA won't solve the problem as far as I understand it. If replicators before DNA worked just as well with specific chirality as without it, wouldn't mutations have been just as likely to keep non-specific chirality just as it was? Could you demonstrate how a pre-DNA strand could work without specific chirality, knowing what we do now about molecular biology?

defenderofthefaith,Is it your position that information gain is impossible via mutation?Mark

quote:

---

As I said, populations may switch to a mutation that is beneficial. If a disease is introduced all those with an enzyme to digest it will die, but those without will prosper. Thus a loss of information can be beneficial.

---

You claimed that this was not evolution...however it is as it is a change in an allele frequency over time..in this case because of a selective pressure.

quote:

---

Information gain is achieved when a random mutation generates new data in a gene. Can you show that the Lenski experiments succeeded as a result of new information, or did the microbe populations merely switch to a latent trait or something else already in their genetic makeup?

---

Here is one example (there are many more) of a novel mutation arisingProc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 4;100(3):1072-7. Epub 2003 Jan 21. Related Articles, LinksParallel changes in gene expression after 20,000 generations of evolution in Escherichiacoli.Cooper TF, Rozen DE, Lenski RE.Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. cooperti@msu.eduTwelve populations of Escherichia coli, derived from a common ancestor, evolved in a glucose-limited medium for 20,000 generations. Here we use DNA expression arrays to examine whether gene-expression profiles in two populations evolved in parallel, which would indicate adaptation, and to gain insight into the mechanisms underlying their adaptation. We compared the expression profile of the ancestor to that of clones sampled from both populations after 20,000 generations. The expression of 59 genes had changed significantly in both populations. Remarkably, all 59 were changed in the same direction relative to the ancestor. Many of these genes were members of the cAMP-cAMP receptor protein (CRP) and guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp) regulons. Sequencing of several genes controlling the effectors of these regulons found a nonsynonymous mutation in spoT in one population. Moving this mutation into the ancestral background showed that it increased fitness and produced many of the expression changes manifest after 20,000 generations. The same mutation had no effect on fitness when introduced into the other evolved population, indicating that a mutation of similar effect was present already. Our study demonstrates the utility of expression arrays for addressing evolutionary issues including the quantitative measurement of parallel evolution in independent lineages and the identification of beneficial mutations.

quote:

---

About those early replicators. How did they replicate? Proteins are required for life, and they are included in the cell's production cycle. Proteins also require a specific chirality. Where did they come from?

---

Proteins are required for life NOW...but are unlikely candidates as the original replicators...RNA is more likely as there are autocatalytic RNAs. Are you asking where do proteins come from? I dont get the second part of your question. [quote]Now, we know that life won't work without specific-chirality DNA. So either the previous simple replicators must have all composed themselves of nucleotides with the same chirality, or DNA evolved from a replicator with non-specific chirality, and somehow arranged every left-handed nucleotide to the opposite side by random chance.[quote] Actually replication can occur without DNA i.e. RNA...if the first molecule of the first replicator has a specific chirality, it will only further incorporate more molecules of the same chirality..not mix and match...all subsequent replication will be non-random with respect to chirality.

quote:

---

Simpler forms before DNA won't solve the problem as far as I understand it. If replicators before DNA worked just as well with specific chirality as without it, wouldn't mutations have been just as likely to keep non-specific chirality just as it was?

---

Who said the original replicators were achiral?

quote:

---

Could you demonstrate how a pre-DNA strand could work without specific chirality, knowing what we do now about molecular biology?

---

Since I have repeatedly stated that once a given molecule..it could be 2 bases of RNA for all we know..has a specific chirality (50:50 chance) all subsequenct replicated molecules will have to have the same chirality...not a mix and match...so how would I demonstrate or model something I don't think occurs or occurred?..and why would I?

Information increase is a non-isssue. Let me give you an example, suppose I take a perfectly smooth cube of stone and then smack it really hard with a pickaxe. Guess what? I've actually increased the information content of that bit of stone! Just by smacking it with a pickaxe. Now, why on earth would you think mutation combined with natural selection couldn't manage it?

Do you have any evidence at all that these loss based mechanisma actually are the way that disese resistance etc. come about. Your entire argument seems to be based around this one point. What is the loss of information basis of multidrug export channels or the existance of a beta-lactamase enzyme variant with increased affinity to cephalosporins?

I think you are just missing the picture of what is being described. There could have been mixtures of left and right handed DNA. Let's say theoretically that some left handed DNA managed to form a self-replicating uhmmm... "organism".All it would have taken is for the right handed DNA based self-replicating "organisms" to survive and thrive, where the Left-handed precursors did not, to result in the reality we have now... all life happens to be right handed.This is similar to the fact that in cosmology we are a matter universe. In reality matter and ant-matter are formed at the same time, so how can we have a "matter universe", technically it should have cancelled itself out. But matter production appears to have had a slight edge, when multiplied by the vast time and events we are talking about, it adds up to a rather large amount of matter.Right handed DNA had the advantage for whatever reason, and its not like the existence of left handed DNA was going to screw with it... just not do anything at all.As far as how did DNA strandish chiral forms get an edge up on forming, over straight chains or other bonding options, there has been a suggestion that chiral clays may have helped in this process. That is a naturally occurring phenomena which gives organic molecules that cling to them and then each other, a specific chiral template.Haven't heard if this research has gone anywhere recently, but that was a plausible suggestion.------------------
holmes

Hello there.
Mammuthus, I wish to clarify something about my chirality point. You state "once the first molecule was formed" referring to a replicator, such as DNA, but I ask how the first molecule was formed with specific chirality.Back to abiogenesis:
Yesterday I received a massive, brand-new Collins 21st Century Dictionary. To find an up-to-date, modern description of abiogenesis, I turned to the spot and found:

quote:

---

abiogenesis n the hypothetical process by which living organisms arise from inanimate matter: formerly thought to explain the origin of microorganisms. Also called: spontaneous generation, autogenesis.

---

I was dumbfounded. This new and somewhat deep dictionary defines abiogenesis as formerly thought to explain life's origins, and equal to spontaneous generation! Then I looked up:

quote:

---

spontaneous generation n another name for abiogenesis.

---

These are from the Collins English Dictionary: 21st Century Edition (2000). (5th ed.) Glasgow: HarperCollins.Nowhere is any difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation mentioned. They are one and the same thing, and have been disproven for over a hundred years, since Louis Pasteur's time.You have mentioned that spontaneous generation concerns organic matter, unlike abiogenesis. Surely it would be easier for organic matter, which had all the right machinery for living cells right there, to form life than inorganic matter? Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are both defined merely as life from non-life.You have also mentioned that abiogenesis had a long time in which to happen. Unfortunately it has been disproven (since it is spontaneous generation; see above) and thus will not happen no matter how long it is given. My mother is a fan of hugely complex jigsaw puzzles. She likes to spend days over a thousand-piece puzzle, putting it painstakingly together on a board, and then pull it apart again as soon as it's finished. She knows a lot by now about entropy. Anyway, if Mum had a lot of time to spare, she could save herself some trouble by shaking all the pieces together and throwing them on the floor. After about a billion years of trying this, she'd have a perfectly complete puzzle. (According to abiogenesis.) Given the problems of inorganic matter, where all the information in DNA and RNA on genetic traits and functional instructions etc. originally came from, as well as chirality (since there is an equal distribution of right- and left-handed nucleotides in nature, how did the first progenitor of DNA assemble itself randomly with the specific chirality necessary for life?)... considering all this, it would have been impossible for abiogenesis to occur. But as I said, since abiogenesis is spontaneous generation and has been experimentally disproven, it cannot happen no matter how long it is given. In the same way, since gravity has been experimentally proven, we won't suddenly float away from the earth no matter how long we wait around.By association, since you have to have abiogenesis before life can form for evolution to work on, evolution also could not have happened.

I repeat Care to answer? How exactly is it that Pasteurs experiment proves what you claims it does?On your dictionary references: So? Ordinary dictionaries are not the place to look for the meaning of jargon. Jargon by its very definition will have a subtely, or in some cases hugely, different meaning to the common usage of the word. Your insistance on equating the two terms simply makes the issue unclear.

I find it interestign htat you are dismissing all the facts and arguments that have been presented on the basis of a questionable interpretation of a dictionary reference.The phrase:

quote:

---

formerly thought to explain the origin of microorganisms

---

most likely refers to the view Pasteur WAS working against - that the presence of modern microrganisms in decaying matter was the result of spontaneous generation. It certainly does not mean that abiogenesis has been disproven - since that is not true.Of course by your logic we should reject Pasteur's findings. Since life cannot cause decay unless life exists the belief that decay is produced by microorganisms must - according to you - rely on abiogenesis and according to you it must therefore be regarded as false. Surely this tells you that your logic is false ? If something relies on the existence of life it does NOT follow that it requires life to come into existence in a particular way.Given the faulty logic, the misreading of the dictionary (and inferring far too much from a simple dictionary entry) and the fact that you ignore all the points raised against you - despite being unable to rebut them I have to ask whether you really honestly meant what you wrote. Surely a considered response should take into account the fact that you have offerend no reaonable argument to support the extension of Pasteur's results into modern hypotheses concerning abiogenesis, nor any valid reason to support your assertion that evolution relies on abiogenesis. Simply repeating assertions that are clearly highly dubious at best, and which you cannot suppport is in direct violation of rule 4 of this forum.

quote:

---

Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided

---

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-22-2003]

quote:

---

Mammuthus, I wish to clarify something about my chirality point. You state "once the first molecule was formed" referring to a replicator, such as DNA, but I ask how the first molecule was formed with specific chirality.

---

The same way they all do except without a protein catalyst

quote:

---

By association, since you have to have abiogenesis before life can form for evolution to work on, evolution also could not have happened.

---

By this logic, since you need to have been present when the first car was ever built to be able to learn to drive, cars cannot exist...this will come as a bitter surprise to my wife today since I promised to pick her up in our car (which cannot exist) in a couple of hours.Really, once you have a replicator evolution can and does happen...what you are claiming is that since how abiogenesis occurred is not known one cannot study evolution which is the old creationist fallacy of conflating to unrelated concepts...or more accurately, misunderstanding several concepts at once.Oh and also using your logic..since you were not there when the bible was written or any of the events within occurred you cannot therefore know that it is true and without this knowledge it must therefore not have happened and is a lie...glad we cleared that up finally

How many times does one have to state this?Spontaneous generation: In a short time, in a small sample...
Simple chemicals -> InsectsAbiogensis: In many, many orders of magnitude more time, in a sample the size of planet Earth...
Simple chemicals -> polymers -> self-replicating polymers -> hypercycles -> probionts -> prokaryotes -> eukaryotes -> colonial eukaryotes -> simple chordates -> arthropods -> insectsWho cares what your dictionary says: This is how *scientists* use the term. Deal with it. Heating material in a small flask and letting it sit for a little while doesn't even remotely discuss the latter case. Not even *slightly*. If you disagree, please explain how it does, instead of just asserting.As to your mother's jigsaw puzzle, pieces are incapable of connecting just by being shaken, unlike chemicals in the real world. If pieces could connect by being shaken, and connected forms were notably more stable than disconnected forms (both like real life), yes, your mother's puzzle would get completed just by shaking it for long enough. And, to make the analogy more like real life, there would have to be billions of ways the puzzle could be solved.As for chirality, life *will* work when on the opposite chirality - only if everything is that other chirality. You simply cannot *MIX* chiralities. If a hypercycle ended up creating an incorrect chirality compound, that hypercycle would fail. Once we get to the around the hypercycle level, you're locked into whatever you start with, and producing incorrect chirality proteins means that you're selected against.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."