Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…301302304306307…328

Comments

  • #9092
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mickrock wrote: »
    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.
    This is why I asked you to define your terms.

    If you don't people might start to think you don't actually have a definition for it and are simply using it as a weasel word like most creationists do.
    And avoiding oldrnwisr's points only makes it look exactly like that.

    So you should probably define what you mean by "information", give us an example of what you would consider an "increase" and then address oldrnwisr's post properly.


  • #9093
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    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.

    My point was that the Hox genes have been replicated in the chordate lineage. Vertebrates have four sets of Hox genes whereas other animals only have one. The extra sets in vertebrates have evolved to serve different functions.

    There are many examples of gene duplication in vertebrates. For example the hedgehog family and the Wnt family in vertebrates have ben duplicated. This allows for the evolution of increasing complexity (though keep in mind that evolving systems don't have to get more complex, in many cases they become simpler).

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7579513

    From the paper above:
    "Gene duplication, followed by functional divergence of new genes, may be one class of mutation that permits major evolutionary change"

    http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rdmp1c/teaching/L4/Evolution/Session9/genomedup.pdf

    And from this paper:
    "Duplication of genes and entire genomes are two of the major mechanisms that facilitated the increasing complexity of organisms in the evolution of life)"


  • #9094
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    We have one example so far, the nylon-eating bacteria. Keep them coming.

    Where is the gain in information in this example? A mutation slightly alters the active site of an enzyme that the bacteria already has for eating a substance that is chemically similar to nylon.

    This is more an alteration of existing information rather than the gain of new information.


  • #9095
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Ziphius wrote: »
    My point was that the Hox genes have been replicated in the chordate lineage. Vertebrates have four sets of Hox genes whereas other animals only have one. The extra sets in vertebrates have evolved to serve different functions.

    You're assuming that the complexity arose somehow by neo-Darwinian means.

    I was looking for more direct, observable evidence of evolution in action.


  • #9096
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    mickrock wrote: »
    We have one example so far, the nylon-eating bacteria. Keep them coming.

    Where is the gain in information in this example? A mutation slightly alters the active site of an enzyme that the bacteria already has for eating a substance that is chemically similar to nylon.

    This is more an alteration of existing information rather than the gain of new information.

    You still haven't defined information, mick.

    Why you so cryptic? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #9097
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Information (n.): a meaningless concept said by creationists to exist in genes, and to be incapable of increasing.


  • #9098
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    mickrock wrote: »
    We have one example so far, the nylon-eating bacteria. Keep them coming.

    Where is the gain in information in this example? A mutation slightly alters the active site of an enzyme that the bacteria already has for eating a substance that is chemically similar to nylon.

    This is more an alteration of existing information rather than the gain of new information.
    You really are going to have to try and define what you mean by "gain of information". Until we know how you are using such terms, it will be difficult to provide you with appropriate examples.

    In words, what are you thinking "gain of information" means? And how do we measure "gain of information"?

    If, for example, you mean "information being added to an existing genome", in a very physical sense, see the Hox genes above. If you mean a "gain in function", the example list will be very long.

    If, as I suspect, you mean "the acquisition of a gene for flying in a previously-terrestrial species of snail", you might want to buy a textbook....


  • #9099
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    doctoremma wrote: »
    If you mean a "gain in function", the example list will be very long.


    Ok, give some examples of specific mutations that have resulted in increased complexity by a gain in function.


  • #9100
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    mickrock wrote: »
    Ok, give some examples of specific mutations that have resulted in increased complexity by a gain in function.

    Acquisition of lactose tolerance by Northern Europeans, convergent evolution in African population:
    http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/full/ng1946.html

    If you google "heterozygote advantage", you'll find many examples of beneficial mutations.

    And, of course, nylonase. Did you read the genetics of it?


  • #9101
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Acquisition of lactose tolerance by Northern Europeans, convergent evolution in African population:
    http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/full/ng1946.html

    So, a gene that all humans have and that used to be switched off in infancy is now switched back on in many populations.

    This is an adaptation but I'd hardly call it a gain in function. The mechanism was already in place to start with. Its switching back on can't be called an increase in information/complexity.


  • Advertisement
  • #9102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mickrock wrote: »
    So, a gene that all humans have and that used to be switched off in infancy is now switched back on in many populations.

    This is an adaptation but I'd hardly call it a gain in function. The mechanism was already in place to start with. Its switching back on can't be called an increase in information/complexity.
    What exactly can be called an increase in information/complexity?


  • #9103
    DB21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,715 ✭✭✭DB21


    King Mob wrote: »
    What exactly can be called an increase in information/complexity?

    Ah here Mob, hardly fair to ask him for a proper, solid, fixed definition. How would he continue to move the goalposts then?


  • #9104
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    DB21 wrote: »
    Ah here Mob, hardly fair to ask him for a proper, solid, fixed definition. How would he continue to move the goalposts then?

    He could put them on tracks. Then they could be both 'fixed' and 'movable'.


    :pac:


  • #9105
    DB21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,715 ✭✭✭DB21


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    He could put them on tracks. Then they could be both 'fixed' and 'movable'.


    :pac:

    Touché

    Then we could stop all this messing around, and get down to brass tacks.


  • #9106
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    mickrock wrote: »
    but I'd hardly call it a gain in function.
    Adaptation, fine.

    Human beings moving from being unable to digest lactose in adulthood to being able to digest lactose in adulthood ISN'T a gain of function?

    Please define "gain of function".


  • #9107
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    mickrock wrote: »
    Ok, give some examples of specific mutations that have resulted in increased complexity by a gain in function.

    Sickle cell disease is a blood disease which occurs due to a single base substitution in the gene which codes for haemoglobin. Those with two copies of the mutation suffer from the disease, however those with only a single copy have do not have sickle cell disease in addition they have higher resistance to malaria than those who do not have the mutation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease


  • #9108
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    DB21 wrote: »
    Touché

    Then we could stop all this messing around, and get down to brass tacks.

    More like brass monkeys.


  • #9109
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Mickrock - here is a post I made on another forum some time ago. I suspect I have also posted it in this thread at some point. I'm trying to understand what people mean when they refer to "information".

    I work on two proteins, in two animal systems (humans, frogs).


    Protein A is very highly conserved - compared between frogs to humans, the amino acid sequence is exactly the same. Disease phenotypes tell us that small mutations (substitutions, small insertions or deletions) in Protein A are very deleterious to protein function.


    Now let's look at Protein B. When you compare the amino acid sequences of the frog to the human, you get around 40 % conservation - that means that 60/100 amino acids (across a protein of 1750 amino acids total) are different between frog and human versions. However, the function of the frog and human proteins is the same. In fact, I can substitute the human version into a frog and the animal develops completely normally.


    Now, this tells me that Protein B can tolerate a huge number of changes to its amino acid sequence and still be perfectly functional. In theory, I can change 1000/1750 amino acids in frog Protein B and it makes no difference.
    1. Comparing Protein B in frogs and humans, which amino acid sequence would you say is the "reference" version, the "correct" one?
    2. Would an amino acid change which made frog Protein B slightly more similar to human Protein B be regarded as a gain or loss of information?
    3. When thinking of protein B, how do we decide which of these radically different sequences contains the most "information"?


  • #9110
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Information (n.): a meaningless concept said by creationists to exist in genes, and to be incapable of increasing.
    Was going to google to see if Dumbski had ever defined "information", but stopped when this showed up:

    226256.png


  • #9111
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    It seems a lot here believe in neo-Darwinism despite the lack of evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #9112
    General Relativity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 683 ✭✭✭General Relativity


    mickrock wrote: »
    It seems a lot here believe in neo-Darwinism despite the lack of evidence.

    tumblr_m4dwrjj69G1qknzn8o1_500.jpg


  • #9113
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    mickrock wrote: »
    It seems a lot here believe in neo-Darwinism despite the lack of evidence.

    Yawn.


  • #9114
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I'm not sure if I am happy or sad to see this thread back in action. On one hand we've got some really well articulated posts by the likes of Ziphius and Oldrnwisr, which are great to read and good for learning things. On the other hand it makes me despair when I see the word 'Information' being bastardized in such a way.


  • #9115
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    :(


  • #9116
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock -
    mickrock wrote: »
    It seems a lot here believe in neo-Darwinism despite the lack of evidence.

    Soapboxing -- the continuous repetition of a single point of view without any attempt to engage in debate -- is explicitly prohibited by the Forum Charter.

    If you want to debate creationism versus evolution, this thread is the place to do it. Bear in mind, though, that it's a debate, not a soapbox.


  • #9117
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    mickrock wrote: »
    Ok, give some examples of specific mutations that have resulted in increased complexity by a gain in function.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/


  • #9118
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I wouldn't bother, his argument consists of throwing turds at a wall and hoping some of it sticks.

    Only there's no wall.


  • #9119
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    So it's back to this again is it?

    10859066.jpg
    10901955.jpg
    9639353.jpg
    9638561.jpg

    Don't worry, there are plenty more.


  • #9120
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    So it's back to this again is it?
    Creationism doesn't really get much more profound than that.


  • Advertisement
  • #9121
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    Creationism doesn't really get much more profound than that.

    Really?
    Have a look at this gem of Christian Creationist Science I just happened upon

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html

    It's got diagrams and citations* and a conclusion and was published so it must be true.

    We will know when our evolution boffins hit the link by the howls of despair which will ring across our fair and pleasant land :D



    *Most if not all citations appear to be from the Bible.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement