"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Canis Lupus · 23-05-2012 09:44PM

This hasn't muuuuch to do with evolution (well it does but it's mostly offtopic) but couldn't think of another place to put it. Anyway they've discovered a new species of monkey that sneezes when it rains. The thought of it has had me giggling for the last 10 minutes.

LINKY

Bannasidhe · 24-05-2012 02:33AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

This hasn't muuuuch to do with evolution (well it does but it's mostly offtopic) but couldn't think of another place to put it. Anyway they've discovered a new species of monkey that sneezes when it rains. The thought of it has had me giggling for the last 10 minutes.

LINKY

I need to pee if there is a slight breeze - perhaps we are related.

robindch · 24-05-2012 03:00AM

J C wrote: »

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I like how we are falling further from perfection (according to J C) but our life expectancy just keeps getting higher!

Recently in western countries, mostly due to decreased infant mortality ... and better food, housing and medical care ... not due to underlying genetics

Heaven forfend that I point out the obvious to a creationist, but increased life expectancy isn't due to babies not dying, but old people not dying.

Bannasidhe · 24-05-2012 10:57AM

robindch wrote: »

Heaven forfend that I point out the obvious to a creationist, but increased life expectancy isn't due to babies not dying, but old people not dying.

Extra thanks for the use of 'forfend'. Nice one.

MrPudding · 25-05-2012 05:44PM

robindch wrote: »

Heaven forfend that I point out the obvious to a creationist, but increased life expectancy isn't due to babies not dying, but old people not dying.

He may be referring to average life expectancy. Reduced infant mortality was, i am led to believe, responsible for much of the increase in average life expectancy we experienced in modern times. Of course, people obviously. We'd to actually to live longer, but stopping kids dying before their first birthday is more effective in raising average life expectancy than people living a few extra years.

MrP

Sarky · 25-05-2012 07:10PM

Proof against intelligent design? Anyone encountering today's heat and humidity. God can f*ck right off if he thinks he did a good job on us.

Turtwig · 25-05-2012 07:47PM

Sarky wrote: »

Proof against intelligent design? Anyone encountering today's heat and humidity. God can f*ck right off if he thinks he did a good job on us.

He did a fantastic job on me. For some reason in this kind of heat my white blood cell counts usually shoots through the roof. As a result, among many other things, I have these lovely things floating inside my eyes that although I'm used to them by now they would definitely freak the **** out of most of ye. Imagine wormy like things appearing in just about everything you look at. I can only dare imagine what happened to folks in the past who described these symptoms to their local "doctors". "Serpents in the eyes, you say? "

Sarky · 25-05-2012 07:54PM

Am I alone in thinking that's actually freaking cool?

Turtwig · 25-05-2012 07:57PM

Sarky wrote: »

Am I alone in thinking that's actually freaking cool?

No you're a scientist so it kind of comes with the territory.

[-0-] · 25-05-2012 09:06PM

Jernal wrote: »

He did a fantastic job on me. For some reason in this kind of heat my white blood cell counts usually shoots through the roof. As a result, among many other things, I have these lovely things floating inside my eyes that although I'm used to them by now they would definitely freak the **** out of most of ye. Imagine wormy like things appearing in just about everything you look at. I can only dare imagine what happened to folks in the past who described these symptoms to their local "doctors". "Serpents in the eyes, you say? "

You know, this happens me all the time. I thought I was going mad. Glad to know I'm not alone!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floaters

Sonics2k · 25-05-2012 09:50PM

[-0-] wrote: »

You know, this happens me all the time. I thought I was going mad. Glad to know I'm not alone!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floaters

I may have briefly thought that link was going to take me to a different kind of floater...

robindch · 26-05-2012 06:39AM

MrPudding wrote: »

He may be referring to average life expectancy. Reduced infant mortality was, i am led to believe, responsible for much of the increase in average life expectancy we experienced in modern times. Of course, people obviously. We'd to actually to live longer, but stopping kids dying before their first birthday is more effective in raising average life expectancy than people living a few extra years.

Hard to know exactly what JC meant.

But, while you're technically correct, I believe that before comprehensive stats began to be assembled -- AFAIR from around the 1950's/60's onwards -- life expectancies simply couldn't be calculated, at least as they're understood today. So far as I'm aware, the expectancy figures that do exist from that time were effectively calculated from the age of five or ten, since the rate of pre-teen mortality (what JC claimed was a prime factor) was so horrendous, and therefore excluded.

spannerotoole · 26-05-2012 02:47PM

Jernal wrote: »

He did a fantastic job on me. For some reason in this kind of heat my white blood cell counts usually shoots through the roof. As a result, among many other things, I have these lovely things floating inside my eyes that although I'm used to them by now they would definitely freak the **** out of most of ye. Imagine wormy like things appearing in just about everything you look at. I can only dare imagine what happened to folks in the past who described these symptoms to their local "doctors". "Serpents in the eyes, you say? "

"Oh, squiggly line in my eye fluid.
I see you there, lurking on the periphery of my vision.
But when I try to look at you, you scurry away.
Are you shy, squiggly line?
Why only when I ignore you do you return to the center of my eye?
Oh, squiggly line, it's all right. You are forgiven."
-stewie griffin

DB21 · 26-10-2012 01:32PM

mickrock wrote: »

There's no denying that natural selection can work in producing changes within particular species i.e so-called microevolution.

But to conclude that lots of microevolution over time can bring about macroevolution and produce a new species doesn't make sense and hasn't been shown by the fossil record.

I don't have any explanation for the origin of species.

Excuse my French:

BULL-f**king-SH!T

You have no idea what you are talking about wrt Evolution. Take it from someone studying Biology at 3rd level. So stop, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Genghiz Cohen · 26-10-2012 06:58PM

Dear Thread,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju4-bw3a48E

mickrock · 28-10-2012 07:47AM

DB21 wrote: »

Excuse my French:

BULL-f**king-SH!T

You have no idea what you are talking about wrt Evolution. Take it from someone studying Biology at 3rd level. So stop, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Calm down, dear!

Have you read any books critical of the neo-Darwinian theory or are you going to uncritically swallow everything you're taught hook, line and sinker?

For some bedtime reading you could start with "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" by Dr Lee Spetner.

MrPudding · 28-10-2012 08:52AM

mickrock wrote: »

Calm down, dear!

Have you read any books critical of the neo-Darwinian theory or are you going to uncritically swallow everything you're taught hook, line and sinker?

For some bedtime reading you could start with "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" by Dr Lee Spetner.

Or not... If you want to read about evolution you should try work by someone qualified in the field. Unlike, I am mistaken, Dr Spetner.

Here is an interesting link where a number of points from his book are shown to be... Have a guess...

http://www.plantbio.uga.edu/~chris/nathist.html

MrP

DB21 · 28-10-2012 12:46PM

mickrock wrote: »

Calm down, dear!

No need to be be condescending. Ruins your whole point by opening with such.

Have you read any books critical of the neo-Darwinian theory or are you going to uncritically swallow everything you're taught hook, line and sinker?

For some bedtime reading you could start with "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" by Dr Lee Spetner.

Spetner only accepts the idea of non-random evolution, and has called several parts of Darwinian evolution theory fradulent. I'm afraid I won't be reading his book, nor accreditng to his theories any more than Lemarcian evolution. Not to mention he is a creationst.

mickrock · 28-10-2012 07:02PM

DB21 wrote: »

Spetner only accepts the idea of non-random evolution, and has called several parts of Darwinian evolution theory fradulent.

An increase in the complexity of life forms would mean an increase in genetic information.

Therefore there should be lots of examples of random mutations which increase genetic information or else neo-Darwinian theory would fall flat on its arse. Dickie Dawkins was asked for an example 15 years ago and couldn't come up with one.

Can anyone give some examples?

robindch · 28-10-2012 07:11PM

Oh, god.

Ziphius · 28-10-2012 07:23PM

mickrock wrote: »

An increase in the complexity of life forms would mean an increase in genetic information.

Therefore there should be lots of examples of random mutations which increase genetic information or else neo-Darwinian theory would fall flat on its arse. Dickie Dawkins was asked for an example 15 years ago and couldn't come up with one.

Can anyone give some examples?

This is called an insertion. Extra base pairs are inserted by mistake into a genetic sequence during DNA replication. This can be a single base pair or a longer sequence that ends up being repeated multiple times along the chromosome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)

A good example of an increase in genetic material leading to an increase in complexity is the Hox genes. This family of genes codes for the basic body plan laid down during embryonic development and is seen throughout the animal kingdom.

In vertebrate animals the Hox group has been replicated several times and this group now contains four sets of Hox genes. The image below shows the regions in which these genes are expressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene

mickrock · 28-10-2012 09:22PM

Ziphius wrote: »

A good example of an increase in genetic material leading to an increase in complexity is the Hox genes. This family of genes codes for the basic body plan laid down during embryonic development and is seen throughout the animal kingdom.

But a mutation in a Hox gene doesn't produce any new information.

Instead it results in already existing information being switched on in the wrong place, causing harmful effects.

28-10-2012 09:28PM

mickrock wrote: »

But a mutation in a Hox gene doesn't produce any new information.

Instead it results in already existing information being switched on in the wrong place, causing harmful effects.

Please define what you mean by "information".

Improbable · 28-10-2012 09:31PM

mickrock wrote: »

But a mutation in a Hox gene doesn't produce any new information.

Instead it results in already existing information being switched on in the wrong place, causing harmful effects.

Can I just ask, what's your level of education with regards to evolution?

MrPudding · 28-10-2012 09:35PM

Improbable wrote: »

Can I just ask, what's your level of education with regards to evolution?

Below Peter.

MrP

oldrnwisr · 28-10-2012 10:58PM

mickrock wrote: »

But a mutation in a Hox gene doesn't produce any new information.

Instead it results in already existing information being switched on in the wrong place, causing harmful effects.

You don't seem to understand the mechanism of DNA replication or what genetic information actually is and yet here you are criticising Ziphius' example.

A mutation which changes or increases variation within a population increases the genetic information.

On a purely mathematical basis it can be quantified as follows:

Let's start with a population of 1000 individuals. 500 of these individuals (which we'll call group A) have a gene with the codon CAG and 500 (which we'll call group

with the codon CCC. So p(A) = 0.5 and p(B) = 0.5. Therefore, H = -(0.5*log2(0.5) - 0.5*log2(0.5)) = 1.000.

Now in the next generation, group A remains unchanged. However, in group B, thanks to a random mutation, there are 499 individuals with codon CCC and 1 mutant with CCG. Therefore, the sum of entropies is now:

p(CAG) * log2(p(CAG)) = 0.50000
p(CCC) * log2(p(CCC)) = 0.50044
p(CCG) * log2(p(CCG)) = 0.00997

So now, H = -(0.50000 + 0.50044 + 0.00997) = 1.01041

Therefore the information has increased thanks to this mutation.

Variation is important to evolution. It is variation which drives natural selection. A more in-depth explanation can be found here:

Evolution of Biological Complexity

mickrock · 29-10-2012 10:01AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

A mutation which changes or increases variation within a population increases the genetic information.

I'm looking for specific examples of actual, observed mutations that have added genetic information.

Surely this shouldn't be too difficult, as an accumulation of these small increases in information is supposed to explain the increase in complexity from a bacteria to a horse.

Genghiz Cohen · 29-10-2012 11:29AM

Don't forget to define Information.

robindch · 29-10-2012 11:34AM

mickrock wrote: »

I'm looking for specific examples of actual, observed mutations that have added genetic information.

Why don't you try google? It's quite easy.

If you're having a hard time finding it -- and I can't imagine how anybody could -- then google for the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria.

doctoremma · 29-10-2012 11:35AM

mickrock wrote: »

I'm looking for specific examples of actual, observed mutations that have added genetic information.

And you won't get (m)any examples until you define what "information" is in a genetic sense, or even what an "increase of information" is.

In very simple terms (for your benefit):

Genetic information encodes a phenotypic characteristic, say wing colour in moths. The "original" population of moths have a beige wing colour ("original" in quotation marks because we have no way of saying whether this wing colour is actually the "original" wing colour). We see a change in the wing colour gene in a subset of this population that causes them to have brown wings. This genetic change of information allows this subset of moths to invade and thrive in a new niche.

How can we possibly say that the brown-winged moths have suffered a "loss" of genetic information?

The Hox gene example above is a very good example of "gaining" information (if you want to use such terms). Duplication of this cluster provided the ensuing organisms a far larger set of patterning genes. Allow some time, some mutations and some natural selection, and we higher organisms now have a far greater genetic palette to direct an increasingly complex developmental programme.

Every organism contains a lot of genetic information, some of it necessary, some of it redundant, some of it ripe for change. Evolution doesn't destroy or create information, it changes it, it co-opts it. A pseudo or ancestral gene might not function now but that doesn't preclude it from gaining function in the future. If a redundant gene is altered to gain a novel and useful function, does this constitute a "gain" of information? If so, try reading about nylonase.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments