• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Darwin wasn't observing evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Dominus Fidelis said:
Forgive my basic question, but I'm a beginner in this debate.

Darwin was observing natural selection, which is the reduction in genetic information as a species gets more specialized. Evolution requires an increase in genetic information, does it not?

Two errors.
1. Evolution does not require an increase in genetic information.
2. Genetic information can and does increase as well as decrease.

What evolution requires is a base of variability in the population. This base is provided by mutation---the natural changes that continually occur in the DNA molecule. Mutations can increase information. This has been observed. New enzymes produced by new proteins carrying out new functions, all based on a change in the DNA structure are a commonplace of biological observation. Mutations can also decrease information, functioning as natural mouse knock-outs (a term geneticists use when they deliberately interfere with the function of a gene.)

What is key for evolution is whether the increase or decrease in information provides survival value for the organisms which carry the mutation. A decrease in information may have just as much survival value as an increase. When it does, natural selection will favour it. So it is irrelevant to evolution whether genetic information has increased or decreased as that is not the criterion used by natural selection for creating species change.

(Mutations happen in individuals, natural selection happens in populations. It is always essential to keep this difference in mind.)
 
Upvote 0

Dominus Fidelis

ScottBot is Stalking Me!
Sep 10, 2003
9,260
383
51
Florida
✟33,909.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Evolution does not require an increase in genetic information.

So a single-celled organism and a human being have the same amount of genetic information?

Mutations can increase information. This has been observed

Really? Can you show me an example please?
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Dominus, you would have to:

1. Define information and quantity / quality of information in genetic terms.
2. Give a function that takes a genome and evaluates its quantity / quality of information. (Which could potentially be equivalent to 1)
3. Show that evolution only reduces quantity / quality of information in genomes.
4. Show a statistically significant number of pairs of organisms where Organism A is supposedly evolved from Organism B but has more information than Organism B.

... which is hard, and which I have not found anybody attempting anywhere. :p

So, a simpler question:

Does polyploidy constitute an increase or decrease in the amount of genetic information, or does the amount of genetic information stay the same?
 
Upvote 0

Dominus Fidelis

ScottBot is Stalking Me!
Sep 10, 2003
9,260
383
51
Florida
✟33,909.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
rmwilliamsll said:
the nylon bug

AiG says the following about the nylon bug...

New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.] In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.

All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.

The principle is explained (for a different example) in the book Not By Chance by Israeli biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner. Yet another example of a ‘defect’ being an advantage, but totally irrelevant to evolution.

Seems reasonable to me, but I admit I'm pretty much ignorant on this subject.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Dominus Fidelis said:
AiG says the following about the nylon bug...



Seems reasonable to me, but I admit I'm pretty much ignorant on this subject.

read the science on the topic.
AiG is not just wrong but very wrong.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

clearly a frame shift mutation has taken place.
the amazing thing is that science was able to catch it in the act. it is neat research.

the only way to understand the topic is to do the homework.

btw
the issue of polyploidy esp. in domestic plants is another killer for AiG's mistaken information claims, as outlined above. i prefer the nylon bug because it is cool.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Darwin was observing natural selection, which is the reduction in genetic information as a species gets more specialized. Evolution requires an increase in genetic information, does it not?

This is your specific question. Does it not? implies that you know something. Had you said, Does evolution etc... ? then you would have been asking for information in an inquisitive manner. Grammar lesson over...

But you're right... I was probably hasty. But it's amazing how many times that people post things here claiming to know that science is wrong about something on the basis of something they've heard someone say, and thought with such great confidence that they were right and everyone else was wrong. Even given the right information they'd rather remain in ignorance.

So do excuse my irritation; and I again apologise if I mistook your motive.
 
Upvote 0

Dominus Fidelis

ScottBot is Stalking Me!
Sep 10, 2003
9,260
383
51
Florida
✟33,909.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
artybloke said:
This is your specific question. Does it not? implies that you know something. Had you said, Does evolution etc... ? then you would have been asking for information in an inquisitive manner. Grammar lesson over...

But you're right... I was probably hasty. But it's amazing how many times that people post things here claiming to know that science is wrong about something on the basis of something they've heard someone say, and thought with such great confidence that they were right and everyone else was wrong. Even given the right information they'd rather remain in ignorance.

So do excuse my irritation; and I again apologise if I mistook your motive.

It's ok, seems to be happening a lot lately. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Dominus Fidelis

ScottBot is Stalking Me!
Sep 10, 2003
9,260
383
51
Florida
✟33,909.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
shernren said:
Well, then, I hope we've answered your questions. :)

Well...not exactly...I asked this one without answer:

So a single-celled organism and a human being have the same amount of genetic information?

I'm still digesting the nylon one, pun intended.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Pun indeed! Well, as I mentioned, it depends on just how you define "information". I mean, it seems obvious that a human cell has more genetic material than a bacterial cell. Like, more mass of DNA. But, some interesting points to consider:

1. The human body needs gazillions of cells for its biological functions, while the mono-cellular microorganism needs, gee, one. Does this mean the one-cell is more efficient?
2. A lot of the DNA isn't actively used in encoding. It exists as junk DNA: whatever functions it has it doesn't make proteins. Does it count as information?
3. Because of the XY vs XX genes, does a female human cell have more information than a male human cell?

A lot of it depends on how exactly you define information. Intuitively, yes, the human cell has more information, but intuition may not cut it in science. Hope I've answered your question?
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.