Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I find it to be really actually interesting. And i've tried to look at other forums in CF, but only here have i found such intelligent rational people, of all beliefs(or lack of) which makes it all the more interesting
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
But isn't info added by what I just described? Sorry if I'm not catching the shell game...
Well, it goes sort of like this. You explain about the duplication and the mutation. The creationist announces that duplication doesn't give you MORE information, just more of the same.You say that if you want something different, that's what the mutation does. The creationist announces that that's just changed stuff from one sequence to another, it hasn't actually added anything, so it hasn't given you MORE information, just a different sequence of nucleotides. You then explain that a duplication followed by a mutation on one of the duplicates, which results in a new enzyme that allows the mutant to do stuff that the parent couldn't do as well as (courtesy of the unmutated member of the pair of duplicates) everything the parent could do too, has got to have resulted in new information, or what else do they call it when an individual has an extra function or ability? The creationist then announces that well, it's still just a bacterium, it hasn't turned into a giraffe, has it, or that it doesn't count because it wasn't a morphologocal mutation, it just resulted in another enzyme, and what they really meant was that for information to increase, there has to be brand-new DNA. Well, given that you have just the four bases to work with (or it wouldn't be DNA any more), and that it doesn't count as brand-new DNA if it's been duplicated or if it's been mutated, they've more or less defined increased information as being impossible by any method involving natural processes. The fact that you have an organism with more DNA and more functions than the parent is apparently irrelevant.
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
Last edited by Cantuar; 28th October 2003 at 01:38 AM.
1. Gene duplications only give you more of what you already had. That's not new information.
2. Selection doesn't make any new DNA. It merely shuffles the DNA that is already there. That's not new information.
The shell game is never putting the 2 steps together but insisting that each step, separately, can give new information.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Yes, if you want a really amusing interlude, get one of them to explain what he actually means by "brand-new DNA" or "brand-new information." When really pressed, they have to admit they don't really know, because it turns out they just read it somewhere and it sounded good and it's one of the latest creationist tactics, but at the end of the day it's just a definitions game - with goalposts being carted all over the place.
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
You then explain that a duplication followed by a mutation on one of the duplicates, which results in a new enzyme that allows the mutant to do stuff that the parent couldn't do as well as (courtesy of the unmutated member of the pair of duplicates) everything the parent could do too, has got to have resulted in new information, or what else do they call it when an individual has an extra function or ability?
I still don't get the shell game so I need to ask some questions. So are there examples (living today/recently) that this scenareo has happened (i.e. the mutant having additional abilities than the parent)? I've always been under the impression that - at least with humans, no mutation is good or beneficial.
Well, given that you have just the four bases to work with (or it wouldn't be DNA any more), and that it doesn't count as brand-new DNA if it's been duplicated or if it's been mutated, they've more or less defined increased information as being impossible by any method involving natural processes. The fact that you have an organism with more DNA and more functions than the parent is apparently irrelevant.
So, do we have this organism somewhere? And when you say we only have four bases to work with, what does that mean (been 25 years since HS biology class)?
I still don't get the shell game so I need to ask some questions. So are there examples (living today/recently) that this scenareo has happened (i.e. the mutant having additional abilities than the parent)? I've always been under the impression that - at least with humans, no mutation is good or beneficial.
So, do we have this organism somewhere? And when you say we only have four bases to work with, what does that mean (been 25 years since HS biology class)?
Well, I don't know much about this topic...but a couple of points:
1. I have recently heard about a bacteria that 'developed' the ability to metabolize nylon. Someone told me that this was a *new* ability that the bacteria did not previously have.
2. Your question about mutations. I believe that mutations are a fairly run of the mill event in cellular biochemistry. Mutations that give rise to cancer, for example, are often the result of genetic cell damage (but not cell death). The repair mechanism can insert an incorrect sequence into a damaged cell, causing a mutation...this can lead to cancer. More often, however, genetically damaged cells simply die. (and this is not usually significant for the organism as a whole). I don't believe that these kinds of mutations are the ones that have anything to do with natural selection. Its the mutations that occur in the reproductive process...
I still don't get the shell game so I need to ask some questions. So are there examples (living today/recently) that this scenareo has happened (i.e. the mutant having additional abilities than the parent)? I've always been under the impression that - at least with humans, no mutation is good or beneficial.
Yes, there are examples. As Mike said, the bacterium that developed the ability to digest nylon as a result of a gene duplication followed by a mutation of one of the two resulting genes is probably the best-known example. I've seen lists of others; it's a well-known mechanism.
So, do we have this organism somewhere? And when you say we only have four bases to work with, what does that mean (been 25 years since HS biology class)?
What I mean by having only four bases to work with is that genes are strands of DNA whch are made up of four bases (A, C, G, and T) attached to a sugar-phosphate background. The only difference between the various enzymes, in DNA terms, is that they're encoded by different sequences of those four bases. A mutation can add, subract, or change bases, which results in a different sequence, and the new sequence can encode a new enzyme or even still encode the old one (or become useless and not encode anything). You have a new sequence, but somehow the "no new information" people discount that as being new information because it isn't brand-new DNA. But a duplication, which gives you more DNA than you started with, also doesn't count as brand-new DNA because it has the same sequence as the original strand. If you can't get brand-new DNA by making more DNA and you can't get brand-new DNA by changing old DNA to a new sequence, I'm having a hard time understanding what it would take to get brand-new DNA at all. If you replace all four bases with something completely different, it wouldn't be DNA as we know it anyway.
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
I'm having a hard time understanding what it would take to get brand-new DNA at all. If you replace all four bases with something completely different, it wouldn't be DNA as we know it anyway.
If I had to make a guess, I would say the creationist thinking goes like this.
First, it is assumed that say a fish and a monkey have different DNA. To get a monkey from a fish, you need "new DNA." I am unfamiliar with how DNA looks across the animal spectrum. And I also understand that my analogy probably doesn't fit the "tree" of evolution. It is just a talking point.
So how does that argument fit with the four bases of DNA that you just explained (I expect it doesn't fit, but I would like to know why)?
Now, DNA works in triplets of bases. It's like morse code (or actually the other way around).
Lets think of it in morse code language. You get a message comprised of a codon of three signals each of which is a dot or dash, right? the three signals make a letter and the letters make a word.
Now make an exact copy of that message. it is not new information, right? same message twice. But you do have twice as many dots and dashes, right? now go into that message and remove a dot or dash. if you remove one, then the whole message slides down and it actually says something entirely different when you retranslate those dots and dashes
I hope this is making sense to you. just put the terms you don't understand into a search engine and i'm sure you can find a lecture or info from a college or uni prof.
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
Linear Mode
