Does evolution have a chance?

[And-U-Say]

I haven't read this whole thread, but this whole convergent thing seems to be off track. The point has been brought up that birds and bats have a convergence regarding flight. I would think that this is the loosest use of the term convergence that you can get. Bats and birds remain fundamentally different in the way they use their wings. Birds only use their wings for flying (we will leave penguins out of this for now, and flightless birds as well). A bird does not use its wings for locomotion when on land or in trees. Strictly a leggs and beak situation.


Bats, on the other hand, use their wings extensively for ground or tree locomotion. They don't hop on their lgs, like birds, they do something more akin to crawling. Even a cursory investigation reveals that they arrived at flight through two completely different evolutionary pathways. The only thing common about them is the ability to fly. I see them as convergent in purpose, but not in path or method. Certainly their genes are not identical (from a flight perspective).

So I am not going with the convergence claim. This is like two different hands of cards that are similar in what "score" or "value" they may have, but not in selection method or in the cards themselves (like getting a 21 in blackjack with an ace and a ten and comparing that with a 6,7 , and 8. They have the same value but are not the same cards). So I think the whole arguement against evolution from this angle is misdirected.

 

[Tomk80]

Have another look at the start of the thread at the estimate of the probability of a single step. I think that answers your question.

I don't think it does. I think it actually takes us back to the card/birth/dice examples, namely in the claim that a specific path has to be followed in order for evolution to work. But the evolution of wings and eyes show us something different, namely that different paths can be followed to arrive at something that does the same. Ultimately, your argument still seems to rest on the probabilites of the current situation arising, while it doesn't address the possibility that other situations might have been possible, but just didn't happen.

 

[Micaiah]

The eye should be a good example to use to illustrate problems with convergence. Sequencing the genes for eyes present in different phyla and then identifying the percent similarity would help to make the statistical argument against independent evolution of the eye conclusive. Say we took the genes for the eye of an insect and a human and found that 70 % of them were the same, then there would be a strong argument against convergence and evolution.

Spetner does make an attempt to quantify this similarity with a reference to the work by Quiring et al. The following is an extract from a commentary on the article sited by Spetner:

That's where the story of eye evolution stood until 1993. That year, Gehring and Rebecca Quiring, also of the University of Basel, were studying fruit flies and looking for transcription factors -- proteins that regulate the activity of genes.

Quiring finally identified a protein that binds to DNA, a common feature of transcription factors. Although it wasn't the kind of transcription factor Gehring was interested in, the researchers sent information on the discovery of this protein and its gene to a worldwide computer database to see if any similar genes, or homologues, had already been reported.

The database search highlighted two genes, one from mice that is called Pax-6 (or small eye) and one from people that is called Aniridia. Both genes, which are nearly identical to the fruit fly gene, encode proteins crucial to eye development. If mutations exist in both copies of the mouse gene, embryos don't form eyes at all. In people, a mutation in one of Aniridia's two copies usually produces defects in the eyes.

Gehring was surprised that the fly gene was so similar to the two vertebrate genes, but the real astonishment came when he realized that the insect gene also plays a role in eye development.

That finding, reported in the Aug. 5, 1994 Science, emerged after Gehring and his colleagues had mapped the location of the new gene. They found it at a chromosomal site harboring mutations in flies with developmental eye defects ranging from too-small compound eyes to a complete absence of the organs.

The new gene, named eyeless, turned out to be more than just a cog in the genetic machinery that makes a compound eye. When eyeless was turned on in parts of the developing fruit fly where it is normally inactive, it could sometimes initiate the development of additional eyes in odd places.

Even more remarkable, Pax-6 and Aniridia did the same. Gehring's group added to fruit flies copies of the vertebrate genes that had been engineered to become active in imaginal disks, embryonic tissues that give rise to adult insect structures like wings and legs.

This unusual experiment, described in the March 24, 1995 Science, generated flies that had extra eyes growing out of their legs, wings, and other body parts. While the eyes were not wired to the brain, they were light-sensitive and looked superficially much like normal compound insect eyes.

Even before the startling pictures of these mutant insects hit the newspapers, Gehring and other researchers set off to find eyeless counterparts in more species, especially ones that might offer further insight into eye evolution.

The group began to collaborate with Tomarev and Joram Piatigorsky, also of NEI, to study the squid Loligo opalescens, for example. This animal indeed has its own version of eyeless, the researchers reported in the March 18 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Moreover, the squid gene, like the vertebrate genes, initiated formation of extra eyes when activated in developing fruit flies. (1)

The evolutionists' response is that similarity was the result of 'basal' genes present in common ancestors of the insect and human. It was either regulating the development of the eye or somehow got copied (co-opted) from somewhere else in the genome for use in this function.

Given the evolutionists paradigm, the response seems a reasonable rebuttal in this specific instance. I am not an expert in this area, so it would be interesting to hear a critique from a less antagonistic source with more knowledge on the subject.

It would be interesting to observe the result of a more comprehensive sequencing of the genes relating to the eye, and if we find that there is a high degree of similarity, to hear evolutionists explain all of these in terms of basal genes.

So are there any other examples of divergent evolution that plainly cannot be the result of basal genes? Other examples cited by Spetner include the development of organs like the heart, liver, brain, and systems such as electric generation systems for electrocution of prey and illumination as well as echolocation systems (like sonar system) of the bats, dolphins, and some birds.

This last one one listed is interesting. Intuitively it is hard to see how an echolocation system could be the result of basal genes. Evolutionists might like to give us an explanation of this. Again a quantitative assessment of the similarity between the genes through sequencing would help confirm the statistics. Using the yardstick of Stebbins, himself and evolutionist, the numbers demonstrate the impossibility of this occurring.

Spetner does acknowledge the objection that convergence is typically discussed in terms of phenotype (physical characteristics of the organism), whereas the statistical calculations are done with reference to the DNA of the genotype. It is argued that there may be a number of genetic paths to the same phenotype. More on that later.

Spetner does deal in detail with another example of convergence which may be more carefully assessed quantitatively. That is the case of the lysozyme gene which is an enzyme found in the stomach of mammals such as the cow and langur monkey. I'd like to investigate these claims in more detail.

1. Travis, J., 'Eye-opening Gene', http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/5_10_97/bob1.htm, 10 May 1997.

PS. I still and not convinced I entirely understand Spetner's points regarding Quiring's paper. If someone could post a link to the full paper I'd be grateful.

 

[Jet Black]

The evolutionists' response is that similarity was the result of 'basal' genes present in common ancestors of the insect and human. It was either regulating the development of the eye or somehow got copied (co-opted) from somewhere else in the genome for use in this function.

I think the critical thing here is Spetner's shoddy argument regarding his objection. On what does he actually base his complaint regarding convergence of the eye? as we can see, absolutely nothing.

This last one one listed is interesting. Intuitively it is hard to see how an echolocation system could be the result of basal genes.

right, lets have a quick look see here.
Dolphins echolocation works principally on the fact that they can hear.
bat echolocation works principally on the fact that they can hear
human echolocation works principally on the fact that we can hear.
Swiftlet and oilbird echolocation works principally on the fact that they can hear.

now it is highly unlikely that each of these evolved hearing independently, since even things like frogs can hear, and they are far far more basal than any of the others. So if Spetner happens to discover that all of those echolocation systems work on similar genes that control hearing, I really honestly truly will not be very suprised by this amazing revalation.

 

[Tenshu]

We previously discussed this ad nauseum. I know the game and don't want to play. It goes like this. I give a definition, you try to pick holes in it and somehow claim that anything stated is wrong because you claim to have found an error in the definition. This is the kind of argument that lawyers and evolutionsits thrive on. It is not the way of true science.

Excuse me? Definition lies at the core of 'true science' 3...

 

[Micaiah]

Excuse me? Definition lies at the core of 'true science' 3...

All you need to know is that the human genome contains DNA, and have a basic understanding of the the DNA. That is readily available from the internet. Simple logic requires that to go from a state of no DNA to the present which is implied in common descent, you must have a net gain in information. Evolutionists' don't like to admit this is the case because of the lack of evidence to demonstrate this increase in information has occured.

 

[notto]

All you need to know is that the human genome contains DNA, and have a basic understanding of the the DNA. That is readily available from the internet. Simple logic requires that to go from a state of no DNA to the present which is implied in common descent, you must have a net gain in information. Evolutionists' don't like to admit this is the case because of the lack of evidence to demonstrate this increase in information has occured.

Actually, this isn't the case.

It is creationists that claim that evolution can't increase 'information'. Scientists have no problem with the theory of evolution increasing 'information' and know full well that the mechanisms proposed in the theory of evolution can increase this 'information' as it has been demonstrated and evidenced. There really isn't that much to it as it is simply chemical reactions and mutations.

Often creationists are asked why the mechanisms such as insertion and duplication that are involved with mutation don't constitute an increase in information. It is at this point that the creationist goes silent and refuses to provide a definition or measurable unit to support their claims. The refuse to address why this isn't an increase in information based on their definition of information.

It is the creationists who claim that there is not evidence that information can increase (or has increased) due to evolution. To make such claims, a measurable unit of information must be given.

So, what is the essense of this 'information'? What does it look like? How is it manifested? Why can't duplications and insertions (along with other mutations) create this type of information? To answer this you need to be specific and provide a definition and unit of measure.

Otherwise, your claims are simply unsupported.

I would like you to also present anywhere where an 'evolutionist' didn't like to admit that an increase in 'information' is needed. I can provide plenty of examples of creationists not providing definitions of information that or objective or measurable (starting on this very thread).

 

[Micaiah]

I think the critical thing here is Spetner's shoddy argument regarding his objection. On what does he actually base his complaint regarding convergence of the eye? as we can see, absolutely nothing.
[/size][/size]
right, lets have a quick look see here.
Dolphins echolocation works principally on the fact that they can hear.
bat echolocation works principally on the fact that they can hear
human echolocation works principally on the fact that we can hear.
Swiftlet and oilbird echolocation works principally on the fact that they can hear.

now it is highly unlikely that each of these evolved hearing independently, since even things like frogs can hear, and they are far far more basal than any of the others. So if Spetner happens to discover that all of those echolocation systems work on similar genes that control hearing, I really honestly truly will not be very suprised by this amazing revalation.

Can you then explain how the bat echolocation system evolved from the ability to hear?

 

[Micaiah]

Scientists have no problem with the theory of evolution increasing 'information' and know full well that the mechanisms proposed in the theory of evolution can increase this 'information' as it has been demonstrated and evidenced.

So you can define an information increase. Using your definition of this, are you now prepared to agree with my statement:

Simple logic requires that to go from a state of no DNA to the present which is implied in common descent, you must have a net gain in information.

YES or NO

 

[perplexed]

Well I think "information" can increase. What do you say to that?

 

[notto]

YES or NO

By any reasonable definition of information, yes. This has already been outlined in this thread for you and explained within the first 20 or so responses.

Now, you need to let us know if your definition of information is reasonable and show why the common types of mutations that lead to new alleles don't meet this definition. The first step in that process would be to provide your definition of information.

I'd also like to show where evolutionists supposedly don't like to discuss this, as again, your argument was addressed quite well in this thread with references to actual research and explainations of evolution leading to new information.

It would seem that it is the creationists who
1) won't explain how they are defining information
2) won't explain why mutation doesn't meet this definition or address the actual physical mechanisms of evolution in their argument
3) won't provide research that shows their claims that evolution can't increase information are valid.

If anybody doesn't like discussing information and evolution, I don't think its the evolutionists.

This link was provided before. I must have missed where the evolutionists don't like to talk about increases in information.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000214.html

Gene duplication is mentioned as one example in which information and complexity in the genome can increase leading to biochemical novelty and even irreducibly complex systems. Despite this ID proponents object to gene duplication as a relevant mechanism. I will explore some of the objections and show how science has and is addressing these objections. I intend to show that the objections raised by ID proponents are mostly without merit.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Can you then explain how the bat echolocation system evolved from the ability to hear?

Easily. Bats live in caves. Caves are dark, and produce dramatic echoes. Its not too hard to tune one's self to the general shape of the enclosure in a case like that. After you've attuned yourself to that, its just a matter of honing your ability.

Its just like when people go blind, and discovered a heightened sense of hearing. I've seen a band of blind people successfully navigate obsticle courses using clicking devices, and describing the echoes, and how they indicated things like walls as opposed to bushes and what-not. One team even did this on bicycles! This was all learned in less than a month, and bats have been at it for an awful lot longer than people have been around, so they ought to be really good at it by now, especially with those ears having been modified to improve that ability.

 

[perplexed]

I wonder how many animals have hearing acute enought to have a very very primitive version of sonar already. If you stand right next a wall sounds must be slightly difference because of sound bouncing off.

 

[Micaiah]

By any reasonable definition of information, yes. This has already been outlined in this thread for you and explained within the first 20 or so responses.

Thankyou.

 

[Tomk80]

All you need to know is that the human genome contains DNA, and have a basic understanding of the the DNA. That is readily available from the internet. Simple logic requires that to go from a state of no DNA to the present which is implied in common descent,

No DNA is not implied in common descent. Common descent only starts from the last universal common ancestor, which already had DNA (since the DNA code is more or less similar in all organisms).

you must have a net gain in information. Evolutionists' don't like to admit this is the case because of the lack of evidence to demonstrate this increase in information has occured.

Which lack of evidence? There is no lack of evidence for common ancestry.

 

[Tomk80]

Thankyou.

Could you actually address the rest of his post, since that is the really significant bit? Why ignore the important questions?

 

[Micaiah]

As stated before, this has been done on numerous occasions. I have provided some simple logic that would lead to the same conclusion regardless of differences in definitions on this issue.

May I suggest that if you wish to pursue the matter further, you could start another thread on the topic and post your own definition of information.

 

[Micaiah]

No DNA is not implied in common descent. Common descent only starts from the last universal common ancestor, which already had DNA (since the DNA code is more or less similar in all organisms).

DNA is not implied in common descent. What does that mean.

How much DNA did the first living cell contain?

Which lack of evidence? There is no lack of evidence for common ancestry

We still await genuine examples of mutations that meet the NDT requirements for evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

DNA is not implied in common descent. What does that mean.

"no DNA" is not implied in common descent.

How much DNA did the first living cell contain?

Don't know. Irrelevant to the conclusion of common descent.

We still await genuine examples of mutations that meet the NDT requirements for evolution.

We still await you to define those requirements. The only requirement I know of releavant to this subject is that mutations should be able to give beneficial effects. Examples of those have been given, IIRC in this very thread. If you have any other requirements I don't know of, please be so kind to supply them.

 

[Micaiah]

NDT assumes and requires that

1. The mutations that occur are very small. The smallest possible steo is assumed. ie single nucleotide substitutions.

2. The mutations are random.

3. It is a logical requirement that the net result of this process from the first theorised living cell to say the present day person involves a net gain in information.