|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:21:01 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
A long journey begins with a single step; and no this is not remixing existing information.
This is according to information theory, new information.
The new gene is incrementally different and contains incrementally new information.
An example of incremental "new information" would be today's closing NASDAQ average when added to all historical NASDAQ closing prices.
Please explain how this remixed information adds useful new information for evolutionary purposes to the cell. If this is consistent with information theory, please share how.
In my mind, this is an example of incremental re-mixing of the same information, and although this can be useful in speciation, it is not useful in advancement of one kind to a more complex kind.
To use your analogy, today's Nasdaq closing price adds to the set of historical closing Nasdaq prices, but it will never participate in creating a set of DJIA prices.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:29:02 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 117
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
To use your analogy, today's Nasdaq closing price adds to the set of historical closing Nasdaq prices, but it will never participate in creating a set of DJIA prices.
Wrong again, however the mechanism by which the nasdaq contributes to the DJIA is not analogous to evolution.
MSFT and INTC are both part of the DJIA and Nasdaq composite.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 7/23/2008 4:37:06 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:30:20 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 562
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
It's possible that this mutation you describe might, for some reason be useful to the survival of the organism, but it is not a meaningful change in an evolutionary direction.
A change that is useful to the survival of the organism is by definition a meaningful change in an evolutionary direction.
By the way, as this conversation has veered in different directions, the topic in the OP (actually post #2) has been quietly dropped. Do you remember your statement?
quote:
I believe it is probable that God placed within the frog kind enough genetic information for it to adapt to the various environments it would encounter over the centuries.
You are not the only person I have seen make this claim and I am convinced it can only be made by people who have not thought about the implications. There are genuine physical limitations on how much genetic information can be loaded into an original kind. There are also implications concerning the genome of the original kind and its descendants that do not match observed reality. There are implications concerning the human genome that would not permit descent from an originally created pair (i.e. if your statement were true, Adam and Eve could not be the sole original parents of all of today's human beings). And finally, there are implications for the subsequent history of all kinds that would be of concern to those who hold to a literal global flood within recorded human history.
In short, if your statement in regard to the frog kind (or any originally created kind) is true, the early stories of Genesis (creation and flood) cannot be literal history. You would have to choose between your literal interpretation of Genesis and your belief about front-loading genetic information in the original created kind. You cannot have it both ways at once.
I am prepared to back up everything I have just claimed with evidence and logic. Just ask.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:30:24 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 117
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please explain how this remixed information adds useful new information for evolutionary purposes to the cell. If this is consistent with information theory, please share how.
See post# 24.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:36:01 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 597
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
If there is in fact an intelligent Creator, then things like sexual reproduction, the origin of complex information, irreducible complexity, the origin of matter, the origin of life are legitimately explainable by "god did it ... You sound as though that's just an unacceptable, even goofy explanation.
Speaking for myself, the problem is that it is an explanation that doesn't explain anything. Nor does it invite further investigation.
Why is the sky blue?
God wanted it that way and made it that way.
Why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve loop around the aorta?
God wanted it that way and made it that way.
Why do whales have finger bones?
God wanted it that way and made it that way.
Why do giraffes have the same number of neck vertebrae as people?
God wanted it that way and made it that way.
If we do insist on inquiring further, our only method is science. The blue sky is explained by Rayleigh scattering, while various features of living animals are explained by evolutionary theory. "God did it" could still be valid, but science provides an explanation at a more fundamental level.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:42:27 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 252
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
quote:
drj11: Like so: "Dunno how, but godditit".
I guess that's the rub, isn't it? If you don't allow for the possibility of a Creator God, then you must have a natural explanation for the origin of everything. If there is in fact an intelligent Creator, then things like sexual reproduction, the origin of complex information, irreducible complexity, the origin of matter, the origin of life are legitimately explainable by "god did it (although a respectful Christian would probably capitalize God)." You sound as though that's just an unacceptable, even goofy explanation.
It's a useless explanation. We want to know how God did it, not just that he might have or might not have. That doesn't help us understand it. The argument from design has been around a LONG time, its not an unnatural thing to wonder about. However, why for some reason the need is felt to move this out of philosophy and naturalize the question I do not know. I think its mainly because so many have bought into the evolution as an atheist conspiracy lie. That's a funny thing about ID... Behe and Dembski want to 'combat the naturalism' that science is built upon, but what they are doing is attempting to naturalize God (aka the designer). If God is tinkering around with the universe in unnatural supernatural ways, then we really have no hope of figuring much of anything out, and we might as well give up right now.
quote:
I believe that God designed and put in place everything GHitch listed. If that, by definition makes me foolish, or incompetent in your mind, then we don't have much to talk about.
I would only think you foolish if you think its a waste of time to investigate such things with the assumption that things in nature have natural causes (scientific investigation).. either that or God would have caused things things to happen via natural processes that we can understand. Just because something has a natural cause, it doesnt mean you can't say "God did it". It just means you now know how He did it.
quote:
But if you like, pick one of the things that GHitch claims evolution can't explain, and let's talk about it. But let's not ridicule each other's viewpoints. That just makes a discussion an argument.
Perhaps I will start a new thread.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:49:41 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's imagine a fictional species with 32 base pairs (A,T,G or C) in its genome.
4^32 = 1.845 * 10 ^ 19 = 18450000000000000000 possible genome combinations.
Next, let's duplicate these 32 base pairs end-to-end during a mutation for a total of 64 DNA base pairs.
4^64 = 3.403 * 10 ^ 38 = 340300000000000000000000000000000000000 possible genome combinations.
4^64 combinations represent much much more information descriptions than 4^32.
Yes, gene duplication increases genome information.
But this is my point Swan: In your example there is duplication of the same information, but not any information different from what was there before. You are describing a larger quantity of the same information, I am looking for information needed for changing the cell materially in an evolutionary direction. I'm not sure mutations cause copying of DNA strands and attaching them end-to-end, but since I don't know, I'll take your word for it. But if so, all you would have is a strand of coded information repeated twice on the same strand.
Your very impressive math (and I don't mean that sarcastically) only describes the same possible gene combinations over and over again. Gene duplication doesn't recombine huge portions of DNA strands. If there is an error, it's in a tiny portion of the DNA, and this just serves to interfere with the available information. It's true that you have 4 nucleotides in each sequence, and they could be sorted in (I don't know, 16?) different ways, so the whole incredibly long strand has a huge number of theoretically possible combinations. But it is already constructed before the process begins, and the proteins responsible for copying are built (created, if I may) to make an exact duplicate. So at best (from and evolutionist point of view), you might have a tiny modification of the information already present in the cell.
To get new information, you would need new and different sequences added to the existing ones, and there is no natural mechanism for doing that. That's why a fish's DNA is so much shorter strand than a human's. Humans are more complex and it requires a lot of additional information to make one. I'm saying there is no mechanism for getting from the fish to the human. Sure, you can mix up the fish's DNA everytime it's copied, and I agree all those combinations could theoretically come about over millions of years, but the strand of DNA in the fish cell will have only the number of sequences that a fish cell contains. It can't grow in complexity, it can only remix itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:00:42 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Gluadys: You are not the only person I have seen make this claim and I am convinced it can only be made by people who have not thought about the implications. There are genuine physical limitations on how much genetic information can be loaded into an original kind. There are also implications concerning the genome of the original kind and its descendants that do not match observed reality. There are implications concerning the human genome that would not permit descent from an originally created pair (i.e. if your statement were true, Adam and Eve could not be the sole original parents of all of today's human beings). And finally, there are implications for the subsequent history of all kinds that would be of concern to those who hold to a literal global flood within recorded human history.
In short, if your statement in regard to the frog kind (or any originally created kind) is true, the early stories of Genesis (creation and flood) cannot be literal history. You would have to choose between your literal interpretation of Genesis and your belief about front-loading genetic information in the original created kind. You cannot have it both ways at once.
I am prepared to back up everything I have just claimed with evidence and logic. Just ask.
Hi Gluadys,
Just got back on the forum and got distracted by other points being made. I didn't mean to ignore you.
Okay, let's see. You say it's not possible for enough genetic material to have been place in a created kind to support 3,000 species of frog. Since you've offered to support what you say, let's start with that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:05:28 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 117
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
That's why a fish's DNA is so much shorter strand than a human's. Humans are more complex and it requires a lot of additional information to make one. I'm saying there is no mechanism for getting from the fish to the human.
Would you say the Marbled lungfush is more complex than people?
The Protopterus aethiopicus, Marbled lungfish has 129907 mega bases
Homo Sapiens (humans) have 3423 mega bases
Come prepared next time with basic biochemistry knowledge.
references: One picogram (pg) equals 978 megabases
http://www.genomesize.com/result_species.php?id=4420
http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php?stats=fish
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:12:02 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 117
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Would you say the Marbled lungfush is more complex than people?
It is reasonable for a lungfish to have such a large genome since we like to call the lungfish "living fossils" as such it is reasonable for them to have an overly complex genome with genes that were lost by their land dwelling cousins and genes that are common with the water dwelling cousins.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:12:38 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 252
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
quote:
Let's imagine a fictional species with 32 base pairs (A,T,G or C) in its genome.
4^32 = 1.845 * 10 ^ 19 = 18450000000000000000 possible genome combinations.
Next, let's duplicate these 32 base pairs end-to-end during a mutation for a total of 64 DNA base pairs.
4^64 = 3.403 * 10 ^ 38 = 340300000000000000000000000000000000000 possible genome combinations.
4^64 combinations represent much much more information descriptions than 4^32.
Yes, gene duplication increases genome information.
But this is my point Swan: In your example there is duplication of the same information, but not any information different from what was there before. You are describing a larger quantity of the same information, I am looking for information needed for changing the cell materially in an evolutionary direction. I'm not sure mutations cause copying of DNA strands and attaching them end-to-end, but since I don't know, I'll take your word for it. But if so, all you would have is a strand of coded information repeated twice on the same strand.
Your very impressive math (and I don't mean that sarcastically) only describes the same possible gene combinations over and over again. Gene duplication doesn't recombine huge portions of DNA strands. If there is an error, it's in a tiny portion of the DNA, and this just serves to interfere with the available information. It's true that you have 4 nucleotides in each sequence, and they could be sorted in (I don't know, 16?) different ways, so the whole incredibly long strand has a huge number of theoretically possible combinations. But it is already constructed before the process begins, and the proteins responsible for copying are built (created, if I may) to make an exact duplicate. So at best (from and evolutionist point of view), you might have a tiny modification of the information already present in the cell.
To get new information, you would need new and different sequences added to the existing ones, and there is no natural mechanism for doing that. That's why a fish's DNA is so much shorter strand than a human's. Humans are more complex and it requires a lot of additional information to make one. I'm saying there is no mechanism for getting from the fish to the human. Sure, you can mix up the fish's DNA everytime it's copied, and I agree all those combinations could theoretically come about over millions of years, but the strand of DNA in the fish cell will have only the number of sequences that a fish cell contains. It can't grow in complexity, it can only remix itself.
An organisms complexity is not directly related to genome size. You can have a microorganism with many times the 'information' in the genome when compared with a human being. They can also have less. So it follows that increased complexity can come with reshuffling or even reducing genome size in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:13:03 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
Response for essentialsaltes and drj11:
The fact that "God did it" in no way takes away from the desire in the human psyche to know how and why He did it. If you say, "God couldn't have done it, there must be a natural explanation," you are just denying His power, and eliminating a possibility. I'm thoroughly convinced that God delights in us asking why, and in our discovery of answers. The reason my answer to some things is, "God did it," is that I see no possible natural explanation. Sexual reproduction is a good example of this. Behe might call it irreducibly complex. There is no reasonable scenario in which accidental mutations and environmental pressures could bring about the first fully-developed sexual couple. Maybe you think there is, but I don't, and that's one reason why I'm confident in my belief that God created sexuality as a part of His plan.
In other words, I don't advocate replacing curiosity and honest inquiry with "God did it." But I do believe He "did" everything, some things by way of natural laws that He put in place, and some by suspending those natural laws over which He has authority. If I believe He is the Creator, and I believe that before He created there was nothing, then I obviously believe there are a lot of things He just "did".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:41:22 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 597
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
If you say, "God couldn't have done it, there must be a natural explanation," you are just denying His power, and eliminating a possibility.
But science is not 'saying' that. Science doesn't care whether one or more gods did it or not; science is only interested in presenting the most successful and fruitful scientific explanation for the available evidence.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:41:24 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 117
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
To get new information, you would need new and different sequences added to the existing ones, and there is no natural mechanism for doing that.
Yes there is. Many mutation mechanisms add new and different sequences
One mechanism in particular is interesting and a focus of medical gene therapy.
Endogenous Retro-Viruses are Retro-Viruses that infect germ cells of the host but do not manage to kill the germ cell go on to pass viral dna into the host's progeny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 5:53:21 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes there is. Many mutation mechanisms add new and different sequences
One mechanism in particular is interesting and a focus of medical gene therapy.
Endogenous Retro-Viruses are Retro-Viruses that infect germ cells of the host but do not manage to kill the germ cell go on to pass viral dna into the host's progeny.
quote:
Would you say the Marbled lungfush is more complex than people?
The Protopterus aethiopicus, Marbled lungfish has 129907 mega bases
Homo Sapiens (humans) have 3423 mega bases
Come prepared next time with basic biochemistry knowledge.
First, knowledge about how many mega bases a lungfish has is certainly not basic. Of course, we are taking your word for it at this point, and that's okay.
A lungfish may have (and I emphasize may) millions of base pairs, but it has not human, or frog, or dinosaur, or whale base pairs. Therefore it will never be any of those things. And there is no mechanism to allow this to happen. All point mutations ever studied have operated to reduce usable information in a cell.
I've got to get off line, but if you're interested in some Ph.D. backup for that, I'll be happy to get it. Just let me know. My guess is, you'll have evolutionist quotes to combat it though, so I suggest we respecfully disagree and move on. What'd'ya say?
And please, try to be respectful of differing opinions. Taking shots at those who disagree with you just weakens your argument. Guess you might call that a shot, but I'm just defending myself.
Thanks for the discussion, Swan.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 6:00:41 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 117
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
First, knowledge about how many mega bases a lungfish has is certainly not basic. Of course, we are taking your word for it at this point, and that's okay.
well, you did claim fish had smaller dna strands and I did provide references to the contrary so don't take my word for it.
quote:
All point mutations ever studied have operated to reduce usable information in a cell.
All information is usable. Sometimes useful information lays dormant for hundreds of generations. Point mutations (single nucleotide molymorphisms) never increase nor decrease usable information in a genome.
Point mutations change the information encoded, Frame shift mutations cause drastic changes in information expression, duplications increase the "data base" (genome) size from which to record more information, and deletions reduce information. Insertions (by a retro-virus) increase genome size and increase genome information. Insertions, deletions, and duplications all have the potential of causing a frame shift and a drastic change information expression.
quote:
My guess is, you'll have evolutionist quotes to combat it though, so I suggest we respectfully disagree and move on. What'd'ya say?
However, I don't use quotes. I look at the original scientific data and mathematical research.
There are mechanisms for increasing genome information. End of story.
We can move on. We can also debate the big picture because the knowledge from science is incomplete (yet growing), but your lack of biological education is hindering your ability to communicate. I'm not taking shots, you are simply and fundamentally unprepared to make claims about genome sizes and do not understand that organism complexity is not a direct function of genome size.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 7/23/2008 6:15:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 6:02:54 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
To get new information, you would need new and different sequences added to the existing ones, and there is no natural mechanism for doing that.
The duplicated sequence is free to undergo natural selection independent from the original sequence from which it came.
There's also alternative splicing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 7:07:55 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6420
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The duplicated sequence is free to undergo natural selection independent from the original sequence from which it came.
I am curious, simply because I hear this assertion fairly often - what evidence do you have that duplicated genes free from selective pressure can mutate to produce novel proteins?
< Message edited by Jhud -- 7/23/2008 10:17:12 PM >
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 9:55:36 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 507
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
It is important to remember that even a 2% difference (no one knows the exact % at this time) means at least 60 million base pair differences.
Of those 60 million bases, how many are harmful mutations? Are humans damaged chimps?
quote:
It is also important to remember that because DNA is a linear array of four bases — A,G,C, T — only 4 possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The tells us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every 4 sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25% identical, not 0% identical.
How do you explain a 98% match? If humans and chimps were created separately why would they share that much identity? Why would they even share the same codon usage? Why is it that in both chimps and humans ATG produces a methionine in a protein?
quote:
A human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that a flower is "25% human"? No, that's outlandishly ridiculous! We supposedly share 50% likeness with bananas.
Both humans and bananas are 100% eukaryotes, and they do share a common ancestor.
quote:
Method: quote:
"You state that changes in DNA result in damage, so the only conclusion I can come to is that we are damaged chimps, right? " Only if you, a priori, adopt Darwinian views. And since there is not yet a single valid ape ancestor of humans known, that view is suspicious at best.
Humans are apes. Also, there are several known transitional species: Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis to name a few. But of course transitional fossils are just "circumstantial evidence" right? Gaps in the fossil record are evidence against the theory unless those fossils are found then the fossils mean nothing, right?
quote:
The majority of mutations are either deleterious or neurtral. All you have to do is search one of the online mutation data bases to see that virtually every known disease and deformity is rooted in a mutation. Mutations are bugs in the code.
So how many diseases are you suffering from? Each human has 125 to 200 mutations not found in either parent due to mutations that occur in gametes. So do you suffer from 125 to 200 genetic diseases? Do you suffer from 60 million genetic diseases due to the number of mutations that separate us from seemingly healthy chimps?
quote:
And considering that beneficial mutations are incredibly rare while deleterious ones are not, it raises the question of just how any beneficial mutation could possibly survive the onslaught of all the bad ones. (see Hoyle quote below)
I will consider evidence. When will you start presenting it? Your ability to quote scientists is noted, but your grasp of reality is in question.
quote:
Evolution of any entirely new species crossing form (ex. fish to reptile) by rm + ns is thus highly unlikely from the start - based on the facts.
Why is it highly unlikely? Evidence please. There are many known transitionals between lobe finned fish and amphibians. I have cited them before but you flatly ignore them. Are you really interested in an honest discussion?
quote:
so, Darwinism fails miserably in many areas:
- billions of missing transitionals
How can you say that they are missing when you don't even know what one looks like?
quote:
- inabilty to cope with DNA/Protein inter-dependance
What interdependence? RNA can be both genetic and enzymatic. Even now RNA makes all of the proteins in your body that then go on to make DNA.
[quote- no explanation for the origin of bio information
It's the same information found in a single atom. Remember your electron codes from high school chem? The code for Carbon is 1s2 2s2 2p2.
quote:
- no explanation for the origin of sexuality
The origin can be seen in bacteria. Sexual dimorphism (separate male and female) was preceded by partial genome exchange as seen in bacteria, gametes of equal size, gamete dimorphism among hemaphrodites (such as is seen in the basal vertebrates such as tunicates), and then finally full sexual dimorphism.
quote:
- no explanation for the origin of coded information systems in all life forms
The coded information is the same as that found in the atoms which make up larger molecules.
quote:
- no explanation for irreducibly complex structures (just-so stories à la Ken Miller don't count)
This was explained by biologists before Behe was ever born.
"... Most present day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system" that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters are factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally become necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; ... "--"Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, pp 422-499.
Irreducible complexity was predicted as a part of evolution before Behe was born. It is poor scholarship on Behe's part to pretend otherwise.
[quoite]- no adequate explanation of biological explosions (Cambrian, Avalon etc.)
Quite easy, actually. The emergence of hox genes opened up a new way of embryonic development which led to many, many different types of metazoan organization. The body types that survived these eras are the ones we see today.
quote:
- no verifiable pathways from simple to extremely complex inter-dependant systems
That would require time travel. Leave it to Cdesign proponentists to require time travel in order to support a theory.
quote:
- no empirical evidence for macro-evo from micro - it's all extrapolation that is now suspected to go against the 'genetic grain' of inherent limitations
Macroevolution has been observed numerous times.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
quote:
- no explanation for why perfectly adapted forms would evolve in the first place while others remain the same for millions of years
Change in environment. Find me an environment that has been stable for millions of years and I will show you species that haven't changed much for millions of years.
quote:
....
all this after 150 years of trying.
Given the robustness of biology and the theory of evolution, it has been 150 years of success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 10:34:51 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 562
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Hi Gluadys,
Just got back on the forum and got distracted by other points being made. I didn't mean to ignore you.
Okay, let's see. You say it's not possible for enough genetic material to have been place in a created kind to support 3,000 species of frog. Since you've offered to support what you say, let's start with that.
Ok. First we have to begin with what is meant by genetic variability. I want to make sure it is not confused with the usual notions of variation. This article from Answers in Genesis is a good example of what I am NOT going to be talking about.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-variation.asp
This article is about variations in a visible character trait or assembly of traits which are dependent on two or more genes inherited independently of each other. He gives the example of human skin colour which could be dependent on as few as two genes which produce (or don't produce) melanin. As he shows, if each parent is heterozygous for each gene, you can get 16 different genetic combinations for melanin production, and that is with only two alternative alleles for each gene.
But while this is a good example of how you can get a lot of variation in character traits with minimal genetic variation, that is exactly why it is not an example of genetic variability. Each gene in this example, and in all the other examples, shows very little variation: only two alternate alleles each.
Now if we could account for all the variation in 3000 species of frogs with only two alleles (or at most 4 alleles) per gene, we have no problem with your scenario.
The problem comes about when we look at how many alleles per gene exist in a population (as opposed to a single organism).
Consider this excerpt from another Answers in Genesis article in reference to human hemoglobin.
quote:
There are over 300 alleles of the hemoglobin gene. That’s a lot of variation, but all those alleles produce hemoglobin, a protein for carrying oxygen in red blood cells (none better than the normal allele). By concept and definition, alleles are just variants of a given gene, producing variation in a given trait. Mutations produce only alleles, which means they can produce only variation within kind (creation), not change from one kind to others (evolution).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp
Let's begin with just that first sentence. There are over 300 alleles of the hemoglobin gene. Note that we are speaking of just one gene. It is as if we have 300 different recipes for the same gene. Each may vary from the others in very minor ways, like 20 cooks using slightly different seasonings in slightly different proportions. But each is different. Each is unique.
He also notes that all these genes do the same thing: they produce hemoglobin. Indeed that is the point. This is one gene with the same function in spite of 300 different recipes for the protein it produces.
Now let us go back to some basic math you learned in high-school genetics.
1. Each diploid cell contains two copies of the species genome i.e two copies of each gene.
2. Each haploid cell contains one copy of the species genome i.e. one copy of each gene.
From this it follows that each gamete (sperm or egg) contains only one of those 300 alleles for the hemoglobin gene. Each zygote and each cell of the mature adult, including its germ-line cells contains only 2 of the 300.
Question. What is the mathematical minimum adult population of a species with 300 hemoglobin alleles?
Answer: 150
And that is a mathematical rather than a biological minimum because it assumes that:
a) every member of the population is heterozygous for the hemoglobin gene and
b) no allele is carried by two members of the population.
In biological reality we have to assume that every allele does have duplicates, both in individuals who are homozygous for the gene (carry the same allele on both copies of their genome) and by having more than one host organism in the population.
Now, lets get to the implications I mentioned, not only for frogs, but for any species.
[quote=gluadys]There are genuine physical limitations on how much genetic information can be loaded into an original kind.
Since no individual can carry more than two alleles for any gene, the size of the original population sets an upper limit on the original variability of that gene. In an original population of two the upper limit is 4. In an original population of 10, the upper limit is 20. In an original population of 150 the upper limit is 300.
Now let's apply this to our frog population assuming that all extant species of frogs are descended from an original frog kind. You said correctly that we could not know the size of the original frog population. However, if all the genetic information needed to generate all the variations in frogs existed in the original kind, we can determine what the mathematical minimum had to be for the original population.
We examine one frog gene. We look not only at how many variations of this gene exist within each species, but at how many variant alleles of this gene we find across all 3,000 species. (If we can get 300 hemoglobin alleles in just one human species, how many might there be if we had 3,000 human species?)
When we have done this for one gene, we then do it for another, and another and another. In some cases we might find very little variation even across 3,000 species. In other cases we can expect a lot of variability even within one species, not to mention 3,000.
In any case we will end up with a list of frog genes and the number of alleles for each gene. The latter number may vary from just 1 to thousands.
Now if all this variability existed in the originally created kind, all of these thousands of alleles must have existed in the original population. And even if we assume the creation of only one copy of each allele, given that each individual can only host 2, then the mathematical minimum original population is the Largest Total # of Alleles /2 If we were to find a single gene existing in 800 variant alleles across our 3,000 species of frogs, and if all of the information for all of these existed in the original population, the original population could be no less than 400 individuals. Practically speaking, it would likely have to be much larger.
Now let's apply this to human hemoglobin.
[quote=gluadys]There are implications concerning the human genome that would not permit descent from an originally created pair (i.e. if your statement were true, Adam and Eve could not be the sole original parents of all of today's human beings).
We already know that there are over 300 alleles of the hemoglobin gene. Can we assume that the information for all of these existed in the original human population?
Not if we understand Genesis 2 literally. According to Genesis 2, humanity began as a single individual. And that individual could only be created with at most 2 hemoglobin alleles. Nor does it help that he was given a female partner, for she was made of his rib and would inherit from him the same two alleles. (Unless God modified them during the remodelling of the rib, but even then we have a maximum of 4 hemoglobin alleles).
Whence then comes the information to generate over 300 alleles? It simply cannot be front-loaded into two individuals. We are left with a choice:
EITHER: the original human population was no less than 150 individuals (so Genesis 2 cannot be understood as the literal creation of only two individuals)
OR: the information for so many alleles could not be front-loaded. It had to be acquired in subsequent generations and added to the original limits of variability.
[quote=gluadys] And finally, there are implications for the subsequent history of all kinds that would be of concern to those who hold to a literal global flood within recorded human history.
A final implication of the front-loading of genetic information. If every variant of every gene existed from the original creation of the kind, not only is there a mathematically minimum population originally. That mathematical minimum must also be maintained throughout the whole history of the kind.
Suppose we have a gene which currently exists in 180 variants. At 2 per individual, the mathematical minimum population in which 180 variants can exist is 90.
If at any time, the population drops below 90, two alleles will be lost. The possibility for variability in the population will be reduced. If this population drops to only 20 individuals, the maximum # of alleles which could be preserved in the population would be only 40 compared to the original 180.
Now if the Deluge described in Genesis was a literal event, many species had their population reduced to only 2 individuals. Some to 14, humanity to 8 of which 5 had to share the same four alleles. Even if none of the genes in any of the wives of his sons duplicated those of Noah, his wife or each other, the maximum # of hemoglobin alleles which the human party brought off the arc was 10. Now the human population exhibits over 300 alleles for the same gene.
The information for the additional 290 hemoglobin alleles would have to be added subsequent to the Flood.
The same applies with slightly different math, depending on whether one or seven pairs were brought on board, to every other species whose survival depended on being in the ark.
Any gene which shows more than 4 (or 28) alleles within the current population of the kind, had to acquire that information subsequent to the flood. For even if it had been front-loaded into the population at creation, it was lost when the population was drastically reduced in the flood.
This is true whether the current population of the kind consists of just one species or of thousands of species.
So again we get a forced choice:
EITHER all the information necessary for every allele of every gene was front-loaded onto a population of suitable size AND that population never decreased below the mathematical minimum for the number of alleles (so the species population was not reduced below that minimum by a global deluge and that story is not literal history)
OR only 4 to 28 alleles survived the flood and any gene showing more alleles across the current population of the kind acquired the new information necessary for them subsequent to the flood.
My basic point here is that you cannot simultaneously insist that the Genesis creation and flood stories are literal history and also insist that genetic information cannot increase.
If the Genesis stories are literal history, genetic information has to increase to account for the observed number of alleles in various genes, both in humans and in any other species preserved in the ark.
If all this genetic information was front-loaded in the originally created kind to be available to all the variety of species descended from it, the population of that kind could not have been less than the mathematical minimum necessary to host the number of alleles either when the kind was created, nor at any point in its subsequent history, including through the flood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 11:59:14 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
Ok Gluadys. Thanks for the time invested in that rather comprehensive explanation of your view. Sadly, you lost me at about paragraph 3.
I don't understand your distinction between visible physical trait variation and genetic variation. I confess I often have trouble following you (and yes, I'm a college gratuate with extensive background in physics and so forth, and as you pointed out when you first contacted me, my understanding of english isn't all that bad - I spelled tenet right, remember?) so do you think you could put that in layman's terms?
Aren't we talking about visible physical trait differences in 3000 different kinds of frogs?
If you can't dumb it down a little, I'm afraid I'm going to have to drop out. In order to discuss this with you, I need to be able to understand you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 12:53:00 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 117
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
gluadys
Question. What is the mathematical minimum adult population of a species with 300 hemoglobin alleles?
I must confess, I usually do not carefully read your posts gluadys, well frankly because I frequently predict their content based on the first sentence. However, this time I thoroughly read and enjoyed every word. I suggest that you save/keep/improve this post because it is such an outstanding example of a successful thought experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 1:41:35 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 562
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Ok Gluadys. Thanks for the time invested in that rather comprehensive explanation of your view. Sadly, you lost me at about paragraph 3.
I don't understand your distinction between visible physical trait variation and genetic variation.
Oh that is pretty basic. I didn't think I would have to explain it. You mean to say you never studied Mendel's experiment with peas and never learned the difference between phenotype (physical character trait) and genotype (genetic origin of the character trait.)?
Basically, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the way pairs of genes are matched up on the chromosomes and the way they are expressed physically. Nor is there a one-to-one correspondence between a gene and a given character trait. A single gene may actually influence several different traits and one trait may be influenced by several genes.
So what you see in terms of skin colour, ear shape, length of neck, etc. etc. and what is found in the underlying DNA coding are different though related matters.
quote:
Aren't we talking about visible physical trait differences in 3000 different kinds of frogs?
Partially. But all inheritable physical trait differences come from genetic differences. I am focusing on the genetic differences.
Can I assume that you are aware that the genes themselves vary? "Allele" is the term used for each variant of the same gene. A gene may have no variants at all (quite rare), only a few variants, or many thousands of variants. When we speak of the variability of a population, we are speaking of how many different variants we find in the genes of the population as a whole.
When you speak of an original created kind having all the genetic information to allow its descendants to diversify and adapt to different situations, it says to me that the original kind must have been highly variable. The genes of the original population must have existed, right from the outset, in all the many different variations which its descendants inherited and currently display.
What the math shows is that a highly variable population cannot be a small population. Because of the limitation of 2 copies of each gene per individual, a small population can only host a limited number of variations in the same gene.
So, for example, a population of 2 is limited to 4 variants of a gene. It cannot be front-loaded with the information for 300 variants.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 1:54:13 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 562
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
quote:
gluadys
Question. What is the mathematical minimum adult population of a species with 300 hemoglobin alleles?
I must confess, I usually do not carefully read your posts gluadys, well frankly because I frequently predict their content based on the first sentence. However, this time I thoroughly read and enjoyed every word. I suggest that you save/keep/improve this post because it is such an outstanding example of a successful thought experiment.
I've used the example before. I would welcome any suggestions for improvement.
The greatest difficulty is shifting focus from combinations of several character traits (& genes) to the variability possible in a single gene. Almost everything on variation, from standard texts on Mendel's experiments to the various anti-evolutionary articles such as those I cited deal with variation in terms of combinations of different traits. There is very little at all on alleles and the variability of single genes.
So it is no wonder people have difficulty with the idea that evolution is a redistribution of alleles in a population's gene pool.
I know when I first began reading up on this, it took me about 6 months to figure out the difference between "genome" and "gene pool". Once I got that straight, I was able to work out the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/24/2008 12:00:03 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 656
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Lets ignore for a second that there are well supported explanations for every single point on your list (read a biology book) and just grant you this wildly inaccurate list, for the sake of argument. How does ID provide explanations to any of these things?
Like so: "Dunno how, but godditit".
Who knew biology was so easy? But in all seriousness... how does ID provide explanations for any of these issues?
Let's not ignore anything you claim.
First, no there are no 'well supported' explanations for every single point. What there is however is tons of more just-so stories ans speculation. I don't honestly think you grasp sufficiently any of the points on that smal list.
Like so: "Dunno how, but evolutiondidit". That's what your so called well supported explanations add up to when put under scrutiny, they do not in fact axplain anything with regards to reality.
_____________________________
“A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers–including even his power to revolt…It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower.” - CS Lewis
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
