Basic Evolution

[Freodin]

I think you try to reach this problem from the wrong side.

The "fittest" concept in "survival of the fittest" does not really have something to do with food or resources. It deals only with reproduction.

Who reproduces most IS the fittest.

Now for why he reproduces most is another question - that deals with food, resources, energy.

The "survival" part is a different topic.
If there was no competition for resources, those who - for whatever reasons - had an advantage at reproduction would simply surpass everyone else in numbers.

But such a competetion exists - and that means that eventually, there will be not enough resources for those who are worse at getting them. If they cannot compensate this, they will eventually die out.

 

[shenzhou]

So while natural selection can be observed, the actual mechanism for evolution has not been observed and can only be speculated at. At no time has new genetic information coding for an advantageous trait every been seen to appear,

This is completely false new genetic information if defined as a completely new gene (new alleles are also new genetic information but creationists deny this because their definition of genetic information is typically decietful and biologically meaningless) for example the SDIC gene in Drosophila melanogaster was formed by a duplication and fusion of two pre-existing genes to form a novel sperm motor protein(1). This mutation then rose to fixation in the population by natural selection (2)(3). Apparently this is not an example of mutation and natural selection.

Other new genes include all new genes formed by duplication:

Mycoplasma pneumoniae​

298 new genes​

Helicobacter pylori​

266 new genes​

Haemophilus influenzae​

284 new genes​

Archaeoglobus fulgidus​

719 new genes​

Saccharomyces cerevisiae​

1858 new genes​

Caenorhabditis elegans​

8971 new genes​

Drosophila melanogaster​

5536 new genes​

Arabidopsis thaliana 16 574​

Homo sapiens15 343​

(4)​

thats a total of 49849 examples of new genetic information! needless to say this will not convince the creationists but thats because they don't care about evidence only their own false convictions.​

(1) Ranz JM, Ponce AR, Hartl DL, Nurminsky D. Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme. Genetica. 2003 Jul;118(2-3):233-44.

(2) Nurminsky, Dmitry I.; Nurminskaya, Maria V.; De Aguiar, Daniel; Hartl, Daniel L. Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila. Nature Volume 396(6711) 10 December 1998.

(3) Dmitry Nurminsky,1 Daniel De Aguiar,Carlos D. Bustamante,Daniel L. Hartl. Chromosomal Effects of Rapid Gene Evolution in Drosophila melanogaster. SCIENCE 5 JANUARY 2001 VOL 291

(4) Jianzhi Zhang Evolution by gene duplication: an update. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.18 No.6 June 2003.

 

[MartinM]

This is completely false new genetic information if defined as a completely new gene (new alleles are also new genetic information but creationists deny this because their definition of genetic information is typically decietful and biologically meaningless) for example the SDIC gene in Drosophila melanogaster was formed by a duplication and fusion of two pre-existing genes to form a novel sperm motor protein(1)

Sorry, no. That is not an increase in information, but merely a change in existing information.





Patently absurd, I know. But that's a fairly typical response. I've seen people swear blind that a process which begins with a set of information {A}, and ends with all the original info {A} plus some other, different info {B} is not neccesarily an addition of information...

 

[Jet Black]

one plus one does not equal two, it just equals a different sort of number one. that kind of thing?

 

[MartinM]

one plus one does not equal two, it just equals a different sort of number one. that kind of thing?

Indeed. One of the three most mind-numbingly stupid arguments I've heard in my life.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Patently absurd, I know. But that's a fairly typical response. I've seen people swear blind that a process which begins with a set of information {A}, and ends with all the original info {A} plus some other, different info {B} is not neccesarily an addition of information...

I, too, am amazed at the mental gymnastics some people go through to deny the obvious. Heh, I still remember when one person argued over the "nylon bug" that while information increased, the overall "net information" didn't, therefore it wasn't an increase in information.

 

[PhantomLlama]

I, too, am amazed at the mental gymnastics some people go through to deny the obvious. Heh, I still remember when one person argued over the "nylon bug" that while information increased, the overall "net information" didn't, therefore it wasn't an increase in information.

That was pretty funny. I think the crux of his argument was that it gained the ability to digest nylon, but it wasn't very good at it.

 

[shenzhou]

Sorry, no. That is not an increase in information, but merely a change in existing information.





Patently absurd, I know. But that's a fairly typical response. I've seen people swear blind that a process which begins with a set of information {A}, and ends with all the original info {A} plus some other, different info {B} is not neccesarily an addition of information...

It is bizarre the sophistry that creationists engage in rather than admit they are wrong. But since the only evidence they have for their myth is misrepresentation, miquotation, misinterpretation and lies absurd argument is all they have to rely on, truly pathetic.