|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does microevolution logically include macroevolution? | |||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The Mutations are not adding new information. It is altering already existent information. You are not adding anything new, you are only altering the information that is already present. I didn't say that when you change what is there you add something new. I said that if you change what is there it is different then it was before. Because it is different it SEEMS new, but nothing new was actually added to the information therefore it is not new. Perhaps you could tell us what you think would constitute new information? What about gene duplication? Would you have new information if your sentence became 'Every Bird Has Wings Wings-', what about 'Every Bird Has Wings Wongs-', do any of these contain 'new' information? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Haekels chart is really decieving. It annoys me that they teach such false proofs even today in school. This is totally off topic and there have already been a dozen threads about Haeckel. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
In our 14,000 gene's we do not have any, fin, or gill gene's in my opinion. How much weight should we give to your opinion? There are any number of genes which are expressed in the fin which are also expressed in the limbs of animals without fins. The very genes in the research you yourself referenced determining hind limb speciificty, Tbx4 and Pitx1, are also found in the pelvic fins of fish. Similarly Tbx5, which is thought to specify forelimb identity, is expressed in the pectoral fins (Ahn, et al., 2002). In one of the many other Haeckel based threads there was a discussion of some recent work on the expression of genes whcih are expressed in gills which are also expressed in organs involved in osmoregulation in vertebrates without gills (Okabe and Graham, 2002). So do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well why not just answer the question with regard to your own example?
Do either 'Every Bird Has Wings Wings-' or 'Every Bird Has Wings Wongs-' contain what you would consider to be 'new' information? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well why not give us a useful example then. Your birdy wing sentence appears to be amenable to no possible transformation which you would admit to giving rise to 'new' information, so it seems rather redundant to have ever brought it up. If there is a transformation which would be sufficient then please tell us what it is.
Why talk about the need for new genes when the matter at hand is your own example. You said "If somehow a new word was added to the sentence then it would show macro-evolution." so why would the introduction of the word 'wongs' not be sufficient to meet this criterion? Let me make explicit the analogy to gene duplication and neo-functionalisation, the acquiring of a new function for a gene. We have duplication of the 'wings' gene and the neo-functionalisation of one copy to the 'wongs' gene, in what way does this not demonstrate the production of a new gene? Allowing of course, for the sake of argument, that the 'wongs' gene produces a related functional protein with a discrete function, or domain of expression, from that of 'wings'. You may wish to argue that gene duplication is not on the scale of a micro-evolutionary event, but in that case you are going to have to make the actual working definitions for micro and macro much more explicit. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
A cut and paste of something by Sarfati hardly seems like much of an argument.
However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information. A 'neutral' mutation has as much power to produce new information as any other mutation, if the gene is not expressed however the mutation is much more likely to be lost again.
The larger the genome, the bigger the problem, because the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that the creature can sustain without error catastrophe; as a result, it takes even longer for any mutation to occur, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong but this just seems totally wrong-headed to me. It shouldn't make any difference how large the genome is. The frequency of mutation is usually measured in something like mutations per base pair per generation, which since it is measured in base pairs means that the frequency of mutations throughout a genome will increase proportionally with the size of that genome. So it is the length of the gene that will change the likelihood of a mutation occurring within the gene not the size of the rest of the genome.
This ‘idea’ is just a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutating to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it. There is no requirement for the gene to be switched off. Simply increasing the amount of a protein expressed may lead to changes in phenotype which may act as a substrate for selection. The actual scenario is that in many cases such genes tend to become no longer transcribed and degenrate into pseudogenes due to neutral selection, this sort of change would in fact be highly detrimental to neo-functionalisation not a neccessary part of the process. Only slight changes to a protein, as little as 1 amino acid, can significantly change that proteins kinetics either in terms of enzymatic activity or binding properties, either to DNA or other proteins. There are also more sophisticated changes than simple base pair substitutions, such as domain swapping, which can produce radically new combinations of binding and active domains, or combinations of binding domains leading to the formation of novel protein complexes. As is so often the case the assumptions behind the argument are highly suspect and the conclusions drawn almost totally unsubstantiated. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-31-2005 10:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So you don't know what neutral mutations are then? Fair enough. Or is this perhaps some unique creationist concept of what constitutes'neutral' mutation?
TTFN, WK P.S. You might be well advised to brush up your molecular genetics before dipping back into answers in genesis for your next cut and paste, it might help you screen out some of the real dross.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Now I am more familiar with the creationist side then the evolutionists side That is a bit worrying since you weren't even familiar with the different types of complexity discussed by proponents of ID earlier on today. It doesn't sound like you are particularly familiar with either side.
how the gene's became so complex? Do you mean particular individual genes? Gene networks or the entire genome? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
No obvious fault there, but then that wasn't what you were saying previously.
A 'neutral' mutation is known only to alter already existing information instead of adding information. That is why he worded it as Genuine information. So in other words he is saying,'neutral' mutations don't produce new information and that makes them powerless. This is a completely different definition, which was kind of my point. The fact that a mutation has no effect on fitness does not neccessarily mean that it has simply altered existing information. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
In other words I have a cell here that is going through mutations and its not growing anything new because its relying on old information and slowly beoming extinct because its only loosing or having neutral mutations. Have you actually looked at anything about gene duplication and neo-functionalisation? These seem to simply be assumptions with absoloutely nothing to support them other than your preconcieved notions of how mutations work. As a hypothetical would you consider the sort of frame shift mutation which is thought to have produced at least one of a number of proteins allowing nylon digestion to be creating new information. If a long stretch of DNA which does not code for a protein or have any apparent regulatory function undergoes a frameshift and suddenly produces a coding region for a protein with some metabolic activity would you consider this an example of a gain of 'new' information? By the way have you actually suggested anything which you would consider to be a gain of information for your 'Every Bird has wings' example yet? What aspects of gene complexity were you thinking of, it is a pretty broad subject. There are complex elements in regulatory , structural, genetic and functional areas, was there anything specific you were interested in? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Could you please stop it with the massive blanket cut and pastes. If you have read the material and have a substantive answer then give it in your own words with reference to your source. If you don't understand it then don't say anything, don't just post the entire page in the hopes that something in there will rebutt the point you are addressing. Are you not even bothering to reference AIG any more, should we just assume that all of your posts are culled from there?
Point 1:- Totally irrelevant. Point 2:- This assumes that the transposases are entirely neutral in terms of selection, not neccesarily the case, especially since evolvability is highly desiable on plasmids as it facilitates the generation of variation, one of the reasons bacteria are able to evolve so many novel proteins allowing them to gain resistance or metabolise new substrates. There is also no evidence either way as to whether the transposases were inserted reently or anciently, it also overlooks the fact that this in reference to many observed instances of these insertion sequences not simply those on pOAD2. Point 3:- Eh? Plamids are well know for their increased propensity to mutation over chromosomal DNA. You would surely expect rapidly arising features to be more likely to occur on such a plasmid? Point 4:- Not really that remarkable considering the highly repetetive and GC rich nature of the sequence on the plasmids. Point 5:- No the research doesn't show that. It just shows that bacteria are very adaptable and that Pseudomonas is particularly so. It would be much more remarkable if the very same nylon degrading gene/s had evolved. Point 6:- is totally irrelevant since I was talking about the theory that the new enzyme was generated effectively de novo. As to their conclusion
Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome. this is already a well established theory, especially since plasmids so readily allow horizontal gene transfer and therby the sharing of successful mutations between bacteria.
I am guessing that you were thinking of each word being a gene and thats why you only duplicatied wing instead of the whole sentece. That is correct. I hadn't seen your other example, it might help if you didn't reply to yourself so much of the time. Your example is pretty hopeless, it shows that you can't in fact concieve of any transformation of your original sequence that would constitute an increase in 'new' information, all you propose is the 'de novo' creation of a completely new and apparently totally unrelated gene. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You aren't thinking of the stick insects are you?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
"the boy ran fast" and a protein is incomplete it would only have the amino acids to say "the boy ran". This is quite a suitable example. Not only are there many detrimental mutations caused by prematurely truncated proteins but there are also many protein isoforms which produce functional proteins with effectively similar truncations. In many cases such a truncated form may act as a repressor of the actvity of the full length protein, such as receptor proteins where the cytoplasmic active site has been truncated, or have a completely different function. What sort of informational changes would have occurred in relation to our starting point should " the boy ran fast" be duplicated and subsequently truncated leaving us with both "the boy ran fast" and another protein, "the boy ran", which has a wholly novel function. Is there any connection between the functionality of the protein product and the information in your scheme of things. I would have thought there must be as the only thing which can be specified is surely the function of the protein as dictated by, to a large extent, the primary sequence of amino acids and therefore by the genetic sequence. So how do changes in function, regardless of their origin, reflect changes in information, if at all? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Natural Selection will not guide it to "florists" either. Mainly because it has no reason to go through "small steps" to get to that goal. Why not? If the organism is in an environment in which the 'florists' gene would be more beneficial than a 'snowman' gene or than a second copy of the 'snowman' gene in the case of duplication. I think one big problem here is the extreme stretching of the analogy between genes and sentences. Jst using a sequence of letters is fair enough and using words gives us something that we can all recognise as a from of information but using sentences which suggest a function and conflating that with the function of a gene is pretty tenuous. I really think that this sentence based approach leads to an utterly useless approach to the issue, you would be much better off thinking in terms of actual DNA or amino acid sequences, and specifically in the form of the sort of genetic modules which confer specific functional attributes. At the moment you seem to be saying that the genome can expand and gain new functional, and indeed beneficial, genes but that neither of these things represents a net growth in complex specified information (CSI), which just seems nonsensical. This sort of approach certainly suggests that CSI is just something that Dembski made up to muddy the waters, if it isn't affected by the growth of genomes or by neo-functionalisiation then it seems pretty much totally redundant in regards to evolution. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024