Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8945 total)
426 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 419 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Happy Birthday: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,648 Year: 20,684/19,786 Month: 1,081/2,023 Week: 32/557 Day: 32/101 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 14 of 458 (508886)
05-17-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by pandion
05-01-2009 5:23 PM


As pointed out later, it depends on the proteins produced. However, in one of the most famous and documented cases of evolution by natural selection, the mutation was immediately apparent. The first notice of a dark morph in the Peppered moth (Biston betularia) was in 1848. Until then all observed moths had been of the light-speckled variety. From then until 1895 the percentage of dark morphs increased until it had reached 95% in polluted areas. As pollution was reduced during the last half of the 20th century, the number of dark morphs also declined.

I believe that evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews wrote that the peppered moth case was simple natural selection, but not evolution in action. Am I missing something here ?

"The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress; for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain, from beginning to end, Biston betularia."

—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by pandion, posted 05-01-2009 5:23 PM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 8:47 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 15 of 458 (508887)
05-17-2009 2:52 AM


By the way, has anyone here read John Sanford's book ''genetic entropy ...'' ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 07-18-2009 9:04 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 17 of 458 (509006)
05-18-2009 1:39 AM


Thanks for the answer, although I had that understanding of evolution, its always good to explain it as you did just to make sure.

Although I would have thought 'evolution in action' would have been an addition of information in the peppered moth population. Harrisons seems to be saying that the moth population just alternated from light to dark to light again, which isn't really new information, if those color were already there ...


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Michamus, posted 05-18-2009 4:37 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2009 4:38 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 37 by pandion, posted 05-19-2009 11:47 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 20 of 458 (509027)
05-18-2009 5:38 AM


Yeah we better not use the term information, or it will not end.

Let's just say that it is not a new trait in the population.

Coyote: depends on what you mean by evolution. If you mean descent with modification sure you don't need new information. But if you mean bacteria-to-elephant evolution, then at some point you will need new information. (or rather new traits)

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Michamus, posted 05-18-2009 1:18 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 05-18-2009 1:22 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 05-18-2009 3:38 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 458 (509145)
05-19-2009 2:05 AM


Yes it would qualify as a new trait. I have the feeling your are refering to the Lenski experiment, which would be a prime example to discuss this.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Huntard, posted 05-19-2009 12:45 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 458 (509146)
05-19-2009 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by onifre
05-18-2009 1:22 PM


Maybe I misexpressed myself.

What I wanted to say is this. If you show me a population of pinches, who's beeks change in size and shape depending on the environment and the food they have access to, and say this is descent with modification, then I will readily approve with you.

But if, after having shown me this, you tell me that such a mechanism, extrapolated to vast amounts of time, could turn a pinch into let's say, a horse, then I will not agree with you. I will simply say that ''maybe we are actually seeing a small part of the process of the pinch becoming a horse, but then again, maybe we are not, and are simply watching a characteristic of the population vary back and forth according to selective pressure.

If you want to use the former (descent with modification) to prove the latter (dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, modern apes and humans have a common ancestor, etc.) you will need much more than that.

This is why it would be interesting to discuss the Lenski experiment, since when I read the article back in 2007, it was actually the very first time that I said to myself: maybe they finally have it, maybe they do have a recorded example of a new trait evolving in a population. Which is what is needed to go from the descent with modification to vast scale evolution of bacterias to microbiologists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 05-18-2009 1:22 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 3:04 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 3:09 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 36 by onifre, posted 05-19-2009 12:50 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 458 (509159)
05-19-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2009 3:04 AM


Re: Dumb Creationist Strawman
Sorry, i should have said:

''If you want to use the former (descent with modification) to justify the possibility of the latter (dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, modern apes and humans have a common ancestor, etc.) you will need much more than that.''

I acknowledge it is not the same thing. But my original idea was this one.

You'll have to give me a little chance people, although I consider myself good in english, it is not my first language and where I live you never get the chance to even speak english other than 2 hours a week in school. Stuff like this will happen, me using the wrong vocabulary doesn't mean I'm trying to pull a strawman (nor that I'm dumb, mind you ;) )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 3:04 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 4:12 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 458 (509160)
05-19-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
05-19-2009 3:09 AM


No I haven't. must not be very popular since I can't even find it on google :(

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 3:09 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 05-19-2009 3:37 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 458 (509171)
05-19-2009 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
05-19-2009 3:37 AM


Ahah, no wonder I couldn't find it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 05-19-2009 3:37 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 38 of 458 (509474)
05-22-2009 1:27 AM


Ok so why do I have these as examples of evolution in my biology book then ?

Neither would I, any one familiar with biology or an experts in the field. So you are in good company.

Then you would have thought wrong. Evolution does not require an addition of information. There are, of course, several mechanisms of evolution that do, in fact add information to the genome of a population. It is also true that the addition of information to the genome of a population is, by definition, evolution. However, evolution can also happen when information in the genome of a population is reduced. You see, at the most basic level, evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over generations. That is what happened (twice) in the case of the peppered moths. And it happened because of natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution).

I mean, they talk for about 10-15 pages about the happening of life in ancient-earth oceans, then about how bacterias evolved into fish, to ampibians, etc. from dinosaurs to birds, from australopithecus to humans, etc.

And then they arrive with the proofs of the theory of evolution, and I have variation of the color of peppered moth in the population, and the beaks of finches on the galapagos island, plus some story about big and small fishes in amazone rivers, similar to the peppered moth. I was like, what the heck ? I have no doubt that this kind of situation is not only in my biology book, but in many (if not most) others.

There could be an effort done to distinguish the evolution: simple descent with modification and the theory of evolution: from bacteria to bacteriologist. As you have said, simple examples of descent with modification can't really be used to justify the possibility of the later. I much more like examples such as Huntard's; of nylon digestion in bacteria, an argument I knew of but hadn't really investigated and so it will be very pleasant to do here BTW.

Ok. How about genetics, fossils and similar morphology...?

We will be discussing these subjects I hope, but in genetics alone, a good read would be ''genetic entropy ...'' by Dr. John Sanford. He gives a couple dozens citations from population geneticists which are extremely revealing of the many problems genetics and mutations pose to the theory of evolution. This maybe seems counter-intuitive, but I can tell you his book is one of the must bullet-proof I have seen on both sides. (and I read quite a lot)


Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 2:02 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:12 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 2:59 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 458 (509635)
05-23-2009 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2009 2:02 AM


Maybe I was unclear: I am advocating that these two concepts SHOULD be more distinguished in evolutionary literature. I'm not saying they are not, but I'm saying it is not uncommon to have an example of natural selection in action to justify the possibility of dinosaur to birds.

We are saying exactly the same thing here.

A look through the reviews of it suggests that he has a theoretical argument that what we observe can't happen and what we never observe must. It reminds me of the (apocryphal) story of the scientists who claimed to have proved that bees can't fly.

It also appears to be standard creationist rubbish, although maybe I'm doing him a disservice --- maybe they got it from him.

I don't know which review you read, but his argumentation is not solely theoretical. it is based on population genetics, and on the cost of selection. It is nothing I have ever encountered in creationist litterature.

What he advances is this: mutations are accumulating in the genome, reducing slowly, but steadily, the overall fitness of the population. The vast majority of mutations are deletirious, with again most of them being near-neutral, and so are in Kimura's 'no selection zone' in his graphic of mutation distributions. It has no relevance with 'what we are seeing can't happen', he is right on par with the population geneticists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 2:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 4:38 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 57 of 458 (509636)
05-23-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
05-22-2009 7:12 AM


So your biology book provides the example of finches evolving into horses? Interesting. I suggest you use it for heating purposes the next cold winter.

Now this is entirely reasonable, so maybe you shouldn't burn your biology book after all. A finch evolving into a horse is not the same as what you say here. Birds aren't even mammals.

Thanks for the assurances, but you just revealed that you think a finch evolving into a horse is a valid example of evolution, so the evidence would suggest that despite your voluminous reading you lack the understanding of biology necessary for assessing the validity of what you read. About Sanford Wikipedia says:

Technically, what prevents mutations+natural selection to have birds become mammals in the theory of evolution? Nothing of course. I wan't saying it happened in the past, I was saying that according to evolution, it could happen in the future.

Now if you are saying otherwise (which I don't think you are, BTW), then you'll have to say why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:12 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 05-23-2009 6:10 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 458 (509637)
05-23-2009 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taq
05-22-2009 2:59 PM


When looking at the chimp and human genome, how much of a difference is there? Depends on the comparison. Of the DNA stretches that humans and chimps share the sequence is about 98% identical. That is, out of every 50 bases there is one point mutation. But what about the whole genome? Overtime genomes can gain and lose DNA also known as insertions and deletions (indels for short). When these are part of the comparison there is an overall similarity of 95%.

So the question that must be posed to those critical of evolution is this. Of the differences between humans and chimps, which CAN NOT be produced by the observed mechanisms of mutation? I know of none. For me, these simple premises lead to an unavoidable conclusion. There is nothing stopping evolution from evolving humans and chimps from a common ancestor.

I'll ask you another question, similar to yours. Of the differences between humans and chimps, whichow can it be produced by the observed mechanisms of mutation in the span of 6 million years ?

Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides, representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations. So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (the other 20 million being in the chimp lineage). This means you have to fix over 3 mutations per year in the population (considering the divergence 6 millions years ago). Even considering generations of 1 year, this is, at best, unrealistic. (human generations are currently 20 years)

Haldane had calculated in 1957, that it takes, on average, 300 generations to select a single mutation to fixation in a population. Although I agree there has been revisions of his calculations in the past fifty years, there are no actual numbers that come even close to the fixation rates needed. All the fixations not done by selection have to be done by genetic drift, which is way slower then selection.

So to answer your question, even if we assume that mutations can create the different information between chimps and humans, even the evolutionnary time scale is not long enough to allow for such massive changes, unless you assume impossible fixation rates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 2:59 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Son, posted 05-23-2009 4:19 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 4:54 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 05-26-2009 6:37 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 61 of 458 (509644)
05-23-2009 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
05-23-2009 4:38 AM


Prokaryotic genetics is very different then eukaryotic genetic. The no selection zone of mutations is quasi-inexistent, thus why bacteria populations adapt rapidly to new environment, but remain overall static in that they stay the same specie. E.Coli has remained E.Coli from its discovery in 1885 up until now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 4:38 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 5:06 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 64 of 458 (509649)
05-23-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
05-23-2009 5:06 AM


That's a good way to wish away inconvenient results. Anything which breeds fast enough to definitively prove you wrong is deemed not to suffer from these magical mutations which cause extinction but aren't selected against. And anything that doesn't, has them ... even though you have no empirical evidence to support this claim.

Since you claim that the dividing line is between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, how do you feel about ... yeast? That's eukaryotic. What's the excuse this time?

How convenient you took away the phrase that would solve the puzzle ;). I didn't mean a clear line between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Its about the no selection zone as I mentioned. It is quasi-inexistant due to low noise, and so the phenotype reflects much, much, much more the genotype of the bacteria. Which allows the fixation of new beneficial mutations to be very fast, and the eliminations of delitirious mutations much easier.

As for that second question, let's just say that if the bacteria hasn't changed from its original description at the moment of its discovery (and the further more precise descriptions that came afterwards) then it is still the same species.

I'm gone to sleep now, we can talk about the lenski experiment tomorrow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 5:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 6:13 AM slevesque has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019