What is the Biblical "KIND"

[Arikay]

Freedom: Do you believe Zebras, Donkeys and Horses are different kinds or Like kinds?

 

[Freedom777]

I would say their Like Kinds.

 

[Arikay]

thanks.

 

[Taffsadar]

Freedom I hope you do know that Zebras and Horses are more genetically different than we are compared to chimps...

 

[notto]

4th April 2003 at 02:54 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #4

But again, its important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE) "The general theory of evolution", because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.
This evidence.

How does gene and chromosome duplications (which is an observed and understood phenomena) fit in to evolution? Does this count as "new information"? Your comments do not address this. Is it simply ignored by your source?

How come "sorting" to create new alleles is not considered "new" information? From this and for an analogy can we assume that when I write new sentences that convey meaning, no new information is added to the alphabet of letters I used to construct it.

Please define information in a way that shows us that "new" information cannot be generated by rearranging genetic information to create new alleles in the gene.

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/2/research/0008

Background

Gene duplications have a major role in the evolution of new biological functions. Theoretical studies often assume that a duplication per se is selectively neutral and that, following a duplication, one of the gene copies is freed from purifying (stabilizing) selection, which creates the potential for evolution of a new function.

Results

In search of systematic evidence of accelerated evolution after duplication, we used data from 26 bacterial, six archaeal, and seven eukaryotic genomes to compare the mode and strength of selection acting on recently duplicated genes (paralogs) and on similarly diverged, unduplicated orthologous genes in different species. We find that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions (Kn/Ks) in most paralogous pairs is <<1 and that paralogs typically evolve at similar rates, without significant asymmetry, indicating that both paralogs produced by a duplication are subject to purifying selection. This selection is, however, substantially weaker than the purifying selection affecting unduplicated orthologs that have diverged to the same extent as the analyzed paralogs. Most of the recently duplicated genes appear to be involved in various forms of environmental response; in particular, many of them encode membrane and secreted proteins.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis indicate that recently duplicated paralogs evolve faster than orthologs with the same level of divergence and similar functions, but apparently do not experience a phase of neutral evolution. We hypothesize that gene duplications that persist in an evolving lineage are beneficial from the time of their origin, due primarily to a protein dosage effect in response to variable environmental conditions; duplications are likely to give rise to new functions at a later phase of their evolution once a higher level of divergence is reached.

 

[Zadok001]

Freedom777:

Explain to me how the ten extra chromosomes in horses (as compared to Zebras) do not amount to microevolved increases in information? Unless you're using a REALLY wierd definition of 'information,' it would seem like a 50% increase in chromosome counts would qualify.

I'm not sure how one could wiggle out of this situation. If you want to say there's no mutations that increase information, and Zebras and horses are of the same kind, you've walked yourself into a corner.

 

[notto]

4th April 2003 at 07:32 AM Zadok001 said this in Post #26

Freedom777:

Explain to me how the ten extra chromosomes in horses (as compared to Zebras) do not amount to microevolved increases in information? Unless you're using a REALLY wierd definition of 'information,' it would seem like a 50% increase in chromosome counts would qualify.

I'm not sure how one could wiggle out of this situation. If you want to say there's no mutations that increase information, and Zebras and horses are of the same kind, you've walked yourself into a corner.

[Creationist Answer]
Of course the horse is more "perfect" than the zebra and the horse lost information and its' chromosomes possibly fused to become a zebra. This can be seen if we compare the zebra and horse chromosmes and can see where they are similar.

Of course if we use this same reasoning and analysis and look at ape and man chromosomes . . . whoops . . . I'll get back to you on this one.

[/Creationist Answer]

 

[SplitRock]

The problem here is that if you start with one mating pair or animals you can have a best 4 variants (alleles) per gene locus because animals are diploid (have 2 sets of chromosomes). This is not enough alleles to account for all the variation we see today. In addition we know that many genes have more than 4 alleles (for example, human genes have an average of 13-14 alleles). If no new information is created, then you are stuck without enough variation to begin with. Also, if the kinds had only about 5,000 years to adapt and speciate after the flood, unheard of rates of evolution would be required, which are never seen today. What sped this process up?

 

[Arikay]

Of course, if horses DeEvolved into zebra, shouldnt we see transitional fossils? shouldnt we see a horse fossil thats around 4400 years old, then like around 3000 years ago, start to find donkey fossils and then like 2000 years ago we should find zebra fossils? Then possibly some transitional fossils inbetween.
Now If the Horse lost 10 chromosomes in say 2400 years. Shouldnt we have already seen the deevolution of the zebra? Why are animals no longer deevolveing?

 

[Cantuar]

How does gene and chromosome duplications (which is an observed and understood phenomena) fit in to evolution? Does this count as "new information"? Your comments do not address this. Is it simply ignored by your source?

Don't hold your breath. I already asked that earlier in the thread and didn't get a response.

 

[Freedom777]

If a printing press printed 2 pages of every page in a book would that be new information?

 

[Arikay]

Semi OT,

Freedom can you answer my questions in the off shoot thread "YEC Fossil Evidence?"

 

[Zadok001]

Freedom777:

If it misprinted one of those pages to be a page from a new book, then yes, it would. Isn't that what happens with duplication and mutation?

 

[euphoric]

4th April 2003 at 11:03 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #31

If a printing press printed 2 pages of every page in a book would that be new information?

That would be the capacity for new information.&nbsp; When the printing press began making copy errors in each version of the book, that would be new information.

-brett

 

[LadyShea]

The "Horsey kind" question needs to be posed to AiG, ICR and Hovind. Arikay and notto, one of you should write it into an email, share with us here, and send it to all three see what answers you get. The need for devolving transitionals or evolving is one of the most intriguing things I have seen in a long time. You're right either they had to add chromosomes, or lose chromosomes.

Creationists care to take a crack at it before it's submitted?

 

[lucaspa]

4th April 2003 at 06:03 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #31

If a printing press printed 2 pages of every page in a book would that be new information?

That's the start of new information.&nbsp; Natural selection working on variations in the second pages finally produces the new information.

New genetic information is a two-step process: 1. Mutation.&nbsp; 2. Selection.&nbsp; Mutation in the form of gene or chromosome duplication or insertions gives you new raw material -- DNA.&nbsp; Selection gives you information just like it does in every other area.

The formula for increasing information by selection is:

&nbsp;-log2(M/N) where&nbsp;N is the total number of choices and M the actual number selected.&nbsp; This formula is not a case of misplaced mathematical exactness.&nbsp; This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious.&nbsp; Take a simple non-biological example.&nbsp; If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them.&nbsp; Here N equals 2 and M equals 1.&nbsp; The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

"Absolutely Not. I believe what you are talking about is Hox genes. and you can learn more about them here http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc...215hox_hype.asp"

Actually, no I wasn't. I was refering to any one of many known mutations resulting in new proteins. Nylon digesting bacteria would be one perfect example.

 

[Kung Food Fighting]

Its funny that Freedom brought up Hox genes since they really hurt his case. Because of Hoix genes, there can be large amounts of phenotypic change without any addition of new information. For example there has not been discovered a single gene that humans have that is lacking in chimps and vice versa. All of the differences are developmental. So are humans and chimps like kinds or different kinds, and please explain why.

 

[lucaspa]

4th April 2003 at 05:18 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #20

Absolutely Not. I believe what you are talking about is Hox genes. and you can learn more about them here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0215hox_hype.asp

This doesn't tell you about Hox genes, but a distorted picture of them.

The point, Freedom, is that small changes in Hox genes give a large phenotypic effect. Change one amino acid in the Ubx gene and you go from 12 legs to 6.&nbsp; Just one. So, you still have the small changes at the genetic level but large changes on the visible level.

Another is the Manx gene.&nbsp; Modify it just a little and you turn a tailless tunicate into a tailed one. A whole new tail!&nbsp; Now, wouldn't you agree that this is an increase in information?

Another example is turning scales into feathers.&nbsp; Changing the expression patterns of two genes -- sonic hedgehog and BMP-2 -- converts&nbsp;skin&nbsp;to feathers.&nbsp; Again, creationists&nbsp;agree that feathers represent increased information, do they not?

 

[Cantuar]

I asked about gene duplication followed by mutation of one of the duplicates to produce a brand-new useful enzyme, which has been observed to occur so it isn't just hypothetical. You have all the original genes plus this useful new one. Exactly how does that constitute a loss of information. Please don't try and pretend that copying pages out of a book is equivalent. You have a new gene producing a useful new protein. Why is that a loss of information?