|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Impossible evolution of new beneficial proteins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Biologically speaking that is not evolution. If you start with a mouse and you finish wth a mouse, that's not evolution, that's just mice.
And similarly, when you start with a rat-sized primate and end up with one that argues by means of a keyboard, that's not evolution. They're still just primates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Let Gould's notion of Simpson's inbetween be the relation of sound to my recent comments on junk DNA then... Then voice is excluded as well but being human we can not get rid of the modem and the carbon and the AT&&&&T keeps a taliking when the watch droped by the chimp keeps the ticking of the bagage claim area. Improbable is not impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
There's no difference with regard to powers or privileges between "Member" and "Junior Member". It's actually pretty hokey. When you passs 30 messages you become a "Member".
There have been some discussions about making this more functional and meaningful, but nothing concrete is planned yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Skeptick Inactive Member |
Spontaneously? Who said evolution is spontaneous? That is creation.
Stephen J. Gould, I thought. As in punctuated equilibrium. Not the same as spontaneous generation, but I it sure sounded like a closely related spin-off to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You misunderstand what Gould says. PE doesn't say that all evolution is fast. And there is evidence for slow change so it would be wrong if he did.
What PE says (and the math of genetics does too) is that speciation events will often happen with a small founder population. That in this smaller population evolution can move along faster than the broad average. Since the population is small it is not likely to be well preserved. If nothing allows for the separation off of populations and if there are no new selective pressures large populations will remain comparitively static. But notstatic. None of that suggests 'spontaneous'. It does suggest damm fast, like 1,000's of generations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Milagros Inactive Member |
Hey CreationMan, I'm just a little confused about these two statements you made.
Percy,Again you are showing increase in info in the genes. I need to see NEW info from another organism that is not related. That can't happen biologically, it's impossible. AND Look why is this so hard?When a gene is duplicated, that technically "increases" the amount of information. And when there is a frameshift mutation, this is "new" information. BUT... Never will you ever see a gene that codes for reptile scales, undergo a mutation or mutations (even over time) that changes that reptile scale information to bird feather information. I have seen no demonstration of this. Does this clarify the point??? You mention that you "need to see NEW info from another organism that is not related." Then you say,"And when there is a frameshift mutation, this is "new" information." Can you see why I might be confused? If frameshift mutation is "new" information then wouldn't that qualify as the NEW info you need to see? I'm sincerely asking. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5289 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Skeptick writes: Spontaneously? Who said evolution is spontaneous? That is creation.
Stephen J. Gould, I thought. As in punctuated equilibrium. Not the same as spontaneous generation, but I it sure sounded like a closely related spin-off to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I've given the requested correction in a new thread to avoid further topic drift. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Everyone else beat me to the punch... but I second their statements.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Loudmouth,
Just discovered this post of yours, and the information in it was news to me. Thanks. Of course, the explanation alternative to evolution is creation, where random mutation is replaced by genetic engineering by supernatural beings. Now that we have at least the possibility that this explanation can be manipulated by prayer, we might have a means of deciding whether the observed "random mutations" were indeed random and not genetically engineered by some supernatural being. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: When cloning new genes into bacteria you will often get point mutations. This is due to mistakes made by the DNA polymerase in the PCR (polymerase chain reaction, just in case). The interesting part is that certain DNA polymerases actually have a higher fidelity (fewer mistakes) than other DNA polymerases. If mutations were caused by supernatural geneticists, this phenomenon would not be apparent. Instead, fidelity would not be a characteristic of specific DNA polymerases. Sorry, from every indication, point mutations are the result random mistakes, perhaps related to the binding specificity of the polymerase to the correct base. The best analogy I can think of is this: if a deck is shuffled correctly, the distribution of "first cards off the deck" should be random over an infinite amount of tries. If the deck were stacked to help out the reciever of the first card, the overall distributions would tend to show this. We don't see "deck stacking" in mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
L.
Good point. Are the polymerase mistakes known to produce something useful? Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Yes, they are
Riley MS, Cooper VS, Lenski RE, Forney LJ, Marsh TL.Rapid phenotypic change and diversification of a soil bacterium during 1000 generations of experimental evolution. Microbiology. 2001 Apr;147(Pt 4):995-1006. Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M. Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Hey, Yaro, even if CM didn't get it, that was one of the coolest posts I've ever seen. Awesome example. I'm saving that whole post. I'll give you credit whenever I show it someone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
M.
Thanks. I hadn't seen those studies, and they are very useful. I still would like to see them replicated with and without prayers, but it sure looks like a confirmation of evolution! S.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
If you look up Richard Lenski you will find dozens of studies in bacteria, including soil bacteria not just his lab E. coli, that confirms his results. He also did a similar study using computer algorithms and basically saw the same thing as with his in vivo studies. He has also studied adaptation in Drosophila and yeast with other groups.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024