molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

....[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-04-2002]

Fred,

quote:

---

Since evolutionists generally reject a thorough definition of information (since it refutes their theory), for the sake of discussion we can limit the definition to the following: An algorithm that programs something that is useful for the organism’s gene pool. We’ll assume the sender is nature (as opposed to the obvious choice of intelligence). That is, we’ll already assume that nature (via blind selection and chance mutation) created the algorithms (aka genes) in the parent population. I’m already giving you a huge (realistically unbridgeable) head start.

---

Welcome back, Fred, glad you brought this up. Could you continue with this thread please. I believe Percy is waiting for a response, as well.http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics -->EvC Forum: Information and Genetics

quote:

---

1/ Let’s get back to the crux of the argument, does evolution require naturally arising new information in the genome?

​

2/ Does evolution require naturally arising information that never previously existed in the genome?

​

What’s the bloody difference, except for a definitive one? You have tried to say evolution can’t occur because, 1/ can’t occur. If this were actually a physical restraint, you would have a point, but since scenario 2/ CAN be true, evolution is safe from information theory.

---

Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Now you have introduced the classical

​

3) information was present from the beginning!

---

No, Fred, I didn't. I pointed out that information that "never existed before" could appear in a genome, since you got so tetchy about what constituted a new algorithm & an altered algorithm. I also pointed out that evolution required new information, or since we got into semantic word games about what "new" entailed, information that "never existed before" would amount to the same thing.You said this is impossible, I showed it was possible.A quick summary of our previous conversation.You claim that new information in the genome is impossible. You define new information as the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.I cited the flavobacterium that gained nylon digestion function by the addition of a thymine in the nyl c gene. This meant that the algorithm was new, the feature & function was new, & that therefore, your definition of new information had been met. You started getting semantic about what was meant by new, by claiming that the genetic algorithm was altered, not new.I point out that you have retreated from any meaningful rebuttal of evolution from an informational pov, because the things you say can’t happen, like leg to wings, can happen without new information, it just requires information that never existed before. Or altered algorithms, right? There is effectively no limit to what an altered algorithm can effect. You can alter algorithms in chimps & get humans, for example.So, either;1/ New functions don’t require new information, just altered algorithms. Meaning new information as you define it isn’t a barrier for evolution anyway, because evolution only claims to have altered algorithms. Regardless, IT IS STILL INFORMATION THAT NEVER PREVIOUSLY EXISTED.2/ You are playing semantic games by claiming the nyl c gene is only an altered algorithm. Either way..Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-05-2002][This message has been edited by mark24, 11-05-2002]

Fred,

quote:

---

Mark, we’ve already been down this road, and IMO you are just playing games. I don’t blame you, you are arguing from a losing position. I already answered you here, and don’t want to keep repeating myself: http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics -->EvC Forum: Information and Genetics
It’s important for the reader to note that Mark still refuses to give an example he would consider as a loss of information. Apparently in his world any change to a genetic sequence is a gain in information. If not, then he needs to explain himself. Please provide what you would consider a loss of genetic information.

---

Firstly, I HAVE given an example of information loss, read the thread.Secondly, you patently DID NOT respond to;http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics -->EvC Forum: Information and GeneticsIt came AFTER your alleged response. Please point out where the points made here were responded to before I made them???????I reiterate (but it would be helpful if you reread the entire post & arguments leading to it);

quote:

---

1/ Let’s get back to the crux of the argument, does evolution require naturally arising new information in the genome?

​

2/ Does evolution require naturally arising information that never previously existed in the genome?

​

What’s the bloody difference, except for a definitive one? You have tried to say evolution can’t occur because, 1/ can’t occur. If this were actually a physical restraint, you would have a point, but since scenario 2/ CAN be true, evolution is safe from information theory.

---

With reference to posts 107 & 112 in this thread, please.I want to know why "new information" is the "dagger in the heart" of evolution, but "information that never previously existed" from generation to generation, isn't? Or am I making a strawman, here? Please read all the relevant threads, you're not the only one that doesn't like repeating themselves.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mark,

​

I don't have much time left tonight. Can you post your example of loss of info to save me the time of searching for it. I'll try to respond tomorrow, but I can't promise anything becuase I have to get some work done (I have to get out my brush and do some nvsram scrubbing - hmm, this serves as a prime example of *increase* in information for our product ).

---

http://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics"2/ A chromosome loss, that carried expressed genes."Please respond, where we left off from, at;http://EvC Forum: Information and GeneticsThanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Quetzal,Fred may not have defined "information", but he HAS defined "new information" as it pertains to the genome.

quote:

---

new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.

---

Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fred,post 133 please.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fred,You've been responding to a lot of posts recently, & I know you don't have much time, & it would be easy to skip over relevant portions of peoples posts, which is what I think you have done here. Perhaps it would be easier if I remade my case bit by bit.For the record. You claim that information theory doesn't allow evolution to occur because NEW information cannot arise. I take an opposite view. So....Do you accept that the nyl c thymine addition in flavobacterium allowing nylon "digestion", represents information that didn't exist in the previous generation (that never had the extra thymine)? If not, why?Remembering that you define new information (for genomic purposes, at least) as "the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. The algorithm that codes for the nylon digestion is different, & didn't exist in the previous generation, so it makes perfect sense that this gene represents information that didn't previously exist, AND it represents a "new useful feature".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fred,http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genomeThanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Mark:
Do you accept that the nyl c thymine addition in flavobacterium allowing nylon "digestion", represents information that didn't exist in the previous generation (that never had the extra thymine)? If not, why?

---

quote:

---

Fred:
I have explained this a million times (OK, maybe only 945,657 times). Its either no gain or a loss. Evidence suggests the mutation may be via plasmid xfer.

---

Fred, this is what happens when you bail out half way through discussions. I have explained the following 945,658 times ; YOU are claiming that new info is IMPOSSIBLE, therefore, because evolution needs new info, evolution is impossible.A thymine addition (to the carbohydrate gene in flavobact) is POSSIBLE. This nucleotide addition changes the function of the gene. Ergo, a gain in function of nylon digestion IS POSSIBLE. I really don’t care whether it happened that way, or not, BUT INFORMATION THAT WASN’T PRESENT IN ONE GENERATION [I][b]CAN[/I][/b] BE PRESENT IN THE NEXT. OK?

quote:

---

Fred:
This means no net gain of information in the gene pool. This evidence is not conclusive however, but it doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t due to plasmid xfer, then we have to consider the fact that the new enzyme is no longer specific to its original substrate, which Dr Lee Spetner in ‘Not by Chance’ shows in detail why this type of mutation invariably constitutes a loss of information.

---

Agreed, but, if the original gene is conserved (duplication), then there is no net info loss for the organism, it has two genes, with different algorithms that perform different functions. Therefore, there has been a net gain in information. Remember, you are saying it is impossible, before you go off on one regarding gene duplication, I am just presenting a scenario that is possible.Hence, we have a possible mutation(s) that CAN result in information gain (or information-that-never-previously-existed, if we are going to dispute the newness of algorithms).

quote:

---

Mark:
Remembering that you define new information (for genomic purposes, at least) as "the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. The algorithm that codes for the nylon digestion is different, & didn't exist in the previous generation, so it makes perfect sense that this gene represents information that didn't previously exist, AND it represents a "new useful feature".

---

quote:

---

See #1 above. I again ask, is it a benefit to the organism population as a whole? Clearly it is not. It is a downgrade. It’s like getting sickle-cell. Sure, its just wonderful to be hereozygous if you are exposed to malaria. Wonderful! If it was my choice I would opt not to have the sickle-cell mutation and take my chances with malaria (or get the hell out of there!).

---

Irrelevant. If it represents a new useful function (by your definition) to the bacteria in the pool of nylon, then it is information to them, but not to bacteria who aren’t in contact with nylon. It’s a bit like writing a letter to 10 people in Mandarin Chinese, if only one of them reads Chinese, then the letter only represents information to one person, it’s not an all or nothing proposition.So, in summary; A thymine addition combined with a gene duplication can represent net info gain, since a new useful function has been gained without loss of the original function. You are saying this is impossible, the above scenario is possible. Put in terms of your definition of new information, a new algorithm/algorithm-that-never-previously-existed that codes for a new useful feature, without loss of the original feature is possible. Hence, whatever way you slice it, information has been gained.MarkPS We are not beating a dead Cheetah, we have only just reached the point where we left off!PPS I also note that you didn't answer the question at the top of this post, but seemed more concerned with whether it represented net gain, or not. Forget about net gain, just consider the "information that didn't exist in the previous generation" part.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

I already recommended to read all my threads. I gave several examples that cannot be explained by evolutionism. Either they violate NDT or the violate molecular evolutionary mechanisms.

---

Peter,Provide ONE example that hasn't been trounced, or retract this ridiculously overconfident claim. Sheesh.Whilst you're at it, please answer the questions raised here ; http://EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2) -->EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2), & at the same time tell me why neutral theory is part of the NDT?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,

​

You write:

​

Peter,

​

Provide ONE example that hasn't been trounced, or retract this ridiculously overconfident claim. Sheesh.

​

I say:
1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene in D melanogaster
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA (is still open for discussion)
6) the ZFY region (nobody responded)
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the IL-1beta incongruence (and more)
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNA

​

And probably more.

---

And all have been dealt with. [B][QUOTE] You say:
Whilst you're at it, please answer the questions raised here ; http://EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2) -->EvC Forum: scientific end of evolution theory (2), & at the same time tell me why neutral theory is part of the NDTI say:
I responded already to your comments. You didn't bring any new arguments to the topic.[/B][/QUOTE]You patently HAVE NOT responded to the questions levelled at you in a way that actually ANSWERS THEM!!!!!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.