evolution calculations

I've seen birds fly. I've never seen a creature or a population evolve. I have seen them change as DNA informtion is reconstitued, deleted, selected from generation to generation. But new DNA sequences are nearly impossible for man to maniuplate and create using all his intelligence and tools into something useful. You just assume it happens by some concept called "chance."What does it mean to you to be "very Christian"?Dan

Wow. Then this will be an exciting time for you. Stick around and you'll find many examples of evolution including within the Primates like you and me and chimps. But it has nothing to do with this thread. Kinda off the wall assertion there. Also has nothing to do with the topic. If you have ANY evidence of that please start a thread on the subject. Nonsense. I KNOW evolution happened because of the evidence. But that's not what this topic is about. Let's stick to the topic. Glad to discuss that with you in an appropriate thread but it is totaly off topic here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Depends. How do you define information? There are several different ways. Yup. Please tell us which definition of information you are using so we can select the most appropriate example. Have several. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm (and this is the one that Lee Spetner grants as increasing information by his definition).
Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.htmlI expect much mirth when you respond. 1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. My opinion is the clay, but it could well have been any of the ones you mentioned, any of the others that have been hypothesized, or something we haven't yet thought of. It's a relatively youthful field. Well, it certainly demonstrates that you are obnoxiously snide when you are avoiding answering direct and relevant questions. "Done with a smile" doesn't make it any more honest or less repellant.You have not replied to Message 53, especially:

quote:

---

I remembered. BTW, that he {Dembski} has never calculated the probability of a cell assembling, so I would appreciate it if you would post the source of your claim that he did.

---

Yes, if I use the only rigorous definition of information I know of. Do you have a definition of informtition where there isn't additional information? There have been numerous times where creationists or IDers (if there is a difference) have been asked for a definition of information that is useful to determine the answer to your above question. However, none is forthcoming.BTW Message 55 was a request for the nature of the answer that you seek. You haven't gotten to it yet. Yes, this is when the argument from design was nullified since a process that can produce design-like results has been shown. Since it has been shown that the mechanism can produce "informtion" and "complexity" (with some uncertainty about what you mean by those terms) what is it that limits the mechanism to producing ever larger amounts? You have made a blanket assertion here. I suspect it is one that you have been feed and have no clue how one might support it since you never thought to ask for support for it. This is know as an argument from incredulity and is a very weak argument indeed. Your discussion here was copied from elsewhere. It is appropriate to give your source when you do that.This experiment does not show what your source suggests it does. In the experiment outlined the more successful DNA (and I thought it was RNA so I think that might be wrong) was the faster copying. Therefore it was selected. That will, as in nature, move it to "simpler".In the same way parasites will evolve to be "simpler".Separately from this DNA can (gene duplication for example) increase in "complexity".NOTE: all the " " 'd terms must be rigoruously defined before the discussion can continue. The ID'ers make use of these terms but do no t know what they mean to themselves or anyone else.{qsEvolution is directional. Look at where you start and look at what we have. Less Complex to more complex. While you may want to apply this to a smaller subset of events, or get philosophical, evolution is nothing without the ability to produce increasingly complexity. Otherrwise, you and I don't exist my friend, and that would get very philosophical.[/qs]while you are suggesting books I would suggest Gould's "Full House" for a discussion of the apparent direction in evolution.As noted the process can produce more of whatever it is you are talking about. Off topic in a thread about evolution I would say. Why not take it to one of the "Origin Of Life" threads. Please define "information" as you are using it here. By any definition that I have seen the above is wrong.

What does it code for?

Evolution theory is constantly "mathematically scrutinized", and I'm not sure why you think it isn't. Most evolutionary genetics studies include a mathematical component.My negative comments towards mathematical models regard the idea of creating a single mathematical model to "prove" evolution possible. Please, specifically state the "serious flaw" of evolution. State what specific evidence you've considered that lead you to the conclusion that it "cannot produce the complexity and vast amounts of information on our planet."Your arguments have been nebulous, and often rely on you feeling that something is implausible. If evolution was so essentially flawed, I would think you could come up with a single piece of solid evidence. Very poor example, since defining "genetic information" should use the language of genetics. Again, your example partially fails because of the false analogy. The other reason it fails is because you haven't given the alternate, just as likely outcome of your duplication/mutation event - that is, what if IWILLCREATEAHAIRFOLLICLE duplicates and rearranges to IWILLCREATEAHAIRCELL? (Hair cells detect vibration in your ear.)Has any new "information" been created? You cannot simply ignore positive outcomes and state that they are impossible. Yes. What organism would you like an example from? Sure. How does this impact evolution theory exactly? It doesn't. The example allows for a variety of mutation, but for only one form of selection - in the experiment the selection is driving the "evolution" of the DNA to smaller strands. This is also seen in the genomes of viruses, where speed of replication (slowed by extraneous DNA) is selected for, and thus smaller genomes.Add some low-DNA-length affinity beads (commonly used in molecular biology research) to the test tube, so that strands below a certain length are removed from the reaction. Now a different selective force is present, and a different result will be obtained.You cannot ignore the selective aspect of evolution; thus your simplistic experiment does not support your case.Did you realize that you included in the quote a pro-evolution-to-complexity line?: So am I supposed to just ignore this line? Please give me a single example of real science from the IDers, otherwise cease insulting the scientific community.I've checked out the on-line ID journal PCID, published by the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Wouldn't you think if IDers were struggling to publish their real science they would do so in their own journal? Feel free to go to the journal and find some work that is non-philosophical or non-theoretical, and I'll be happy to discuss it.In fact, what is a single testable hypothesis that the IDers have come up with? Again, this happens constantly with the evolutionary biology field. Do you think that everyone in biology simply sits around agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back? A finding refuting evolution would be the biggest biological finding since the elucidation of DNA. Every time an evolution experiment is done, the theory of evolution is tested. Do you understand how science works?More importantly, do you understand that evolutionary theory has undergone reworking and revision since Darwin proposed it? It is not a 150-year-old stagnant theory, and it has been critiqued by the leading minds in the evolution field. Check out the links above provided by JonF, or check out the thread Beneficial Mutations, which I have been participating in. I have little interest in reading Dembski's propaganda. If you think he has produced any piece of evidence that either refutes evolution or confirm ID, please relay that piece of evidence (weren't you supposed to produce some calculations of Dembski's?). I don't see anything other than commentary in the list you gave me. I believe it is quite possible that life formed from non-life. Do you seriously believe the opposite, that life simply always existed? Probabilities are relative to the conditions, which we do not know. Under the right conditions it would be very likely. Panspermia is just pushing things back a step. Sort of like stating, life couldn't have formed on its own, so an intelligent designer made it. Well, where did the intelligent designer come from?The sorts of abiogenesis hypotheses currently being proposed often involve solid substrates for reaction catalysis, and/or a temperature convection reaction. Clay and vents can fit the bill, but again, we don't know the conditions.Abiogenesis studies demonstrate ways that abiogenesis could have occurred, and they are quite plausible - plausible enough that we don't need to make the least plausible assumption to explain it, which is the eternal existence of an omnipotent, undetectable, deceptive being. Then what is your explanation for the existence of information - where did it come from? A designer/creator is not a valid reply, since a designer/creator necessarily is/has information. You've just described evolution. If you believe this statement, you support the theory of evolution. Absolutely false.It doesn't happen often relative to neutral or detrimental DNA changes, but it happens, and it is selected for.A real example: Do you know what happens if a few million short (~30 bases), random RNA strands are produced in the lab by purely chemical synthesis, and no input from the scientists as to the nature of the sequence? The result is that many of the strands will have enzymatic activity, and be able to do things like accurately catalyze the polymerization of other RNA strands. (If you are interested I can spend time digging up a reference or two).Do you understand? Random sequence results in specific activity, in a form that is heritable. Is this not information? Is this not a foundation for evolution?Perhaps creation of genetic information is far less complex than you think.

That's a really funny thing to say. You do know that engineers and programmers are employing that exact mechanism - actually, those exact two mechanisms, random mutation and natural selection - to create circuits and designs vastly more complicated than intelligence is able to do on its own, right?They're not "seriously flawed", they're more than sufficient to create complexity; we use them to do specifically that for our own ends. That's not how DNA sequences are laid out, however. They're laid out like this:5' ACGTATATGCAT 3'Now suppose that mutates, so that you have5' CCGTATATGCAT 3'Is that new genetic information? Obviously, it is. That's a novel sequence that the organism did not possess, so naturally, it must be new information. J Clin Invest. 1980 Nov;66(5):892-900.A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family.Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Capurso A 2nd, Weisgraber KH, Mahley RW.

quote:

---

Significant hypertriglyceridemia with a very marked decrease of high density lipoproteins (HDL)-cholesterol levels (7-14 mg/dl) was detected in three members (father, son, and daughter) of an Italian family. The three affected individuals did not show any clinical signs of atherosclerosis, nor was the atherosclerotic disease significantly present in the family. Lipoprotein lipase and lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase activites were normal or slightly reduced. Morphological and compositional studies of HDL in the subjects showed a significant enlargement of the lipoprotein particles (approximately 120 vs. approximately 94 A for control HDL) and a concomitant increase in the triglyceride content. Analytical isoelectric focusing of HDL apoproteins provided evidence for multiple isoproteins in the apoprotein(apo)-A-I range, with nine different bands being detected instead of the usual four bands observed in normal subjects. Two-dimensional immunoelectrophoresis against apo-A antiserum indicated a clear reduction of apo-A in the alpha electrophoretic region, with splitting of the protein "peak." The observation in otherwise clinically healthy subjects of hypertriglyceridemia, reduced HDL-cholesterol, and marked apoprotein abnormalities, without a significant incidence of atherosclerotic disease in the family suggests this is a new disease entity in the field of lipoprotein pathology, very probably related to an altered amino acid composition of the apo-A-I protein (see Weisgraber et al. 1980. J. Clin. Invest. 66: 901-907).

---

Yes, it is. And that direction is "outward" - that is, increasing diversity. It's not a surprise that we see more complex organisms; when you're at the bottom of the simplicity scale, but diversity is increasing, there's only one direction to go.But it remains the case that no matter how you measure them, the vast, vast majority of life on Earth is extraordinarily simple; the complex stuff is so rare it barely rates mention. Except, of course, for the anthrocentric fact that we belong to that extremely small group. Actually, you can. It's really not all that hard to generate a sequence of DNA that can be transcribed into a protein; about one-half of all random amino polypeptides exhibit ATP-binding activity. The rate at which random mutation generates new, useful genetic information is drastically improved, of course, when you add selection into the mix.

Here's a population that evolved multicellularity over two decades ago:

quote:

---

5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

​

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

---

Undergraduates do it in the lab regularly. Don't get out much, do ya?

I can see that my awareness campaign for the misleading nature of this article is not having much success.It would be better just to read some of the primary literature such as "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Ohno S, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984
'Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.', Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I; Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 May;61(5):2020-2.TTFN,WK

Perhaps you would be interested in the topic on {{Age Correlations and an Old Earth}}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.enjoy.

Again, this is a precis of research and a less than readily accessible reference, a better reference would be... TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 02-14-2005 04:26 AMThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 02-14-2005 11:42 AM

I got an adobe read error on that ?? anyone else?

Reads fine in Acrobat 7 here.

Read fine in Adobe Reader 6 here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

yeah, silly me for thinking that my brand new laptop would have brand new versions of adobe ... it had version 5???downloaded 7.dustbined 5.happy now.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}