Evidence for macro-evolution

[sfs]

mutations destroy a previously specified function.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they create a new function. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away.

I suppose you could measure it by the length of the sequence required for a specific protein for example. A modest one may be hundreds of nucleotides long with a precise arrangement required to meet its function, or any function for that matter. And we can quantify the mathematic probability of such a thing ever being created by random mutation, it ain't good.

Yeah, that's wrong, too. Random mutations can be observed to generate new functions at quite a respectable rate, we can observe closely related genes with different functions and reconstruct their origin in a gene duplication event as well as the mutations that led to a new function, and we can also identify the mutations that caused nonfunctional sequence to become functional in some species.

All of which is to say that we have very good evidence that random mutations can create new genes, can generate new molecular functions for existing or duplicated genes, and can generate new, markedly diverged phenotypes. So what exactly is it that you think mutations can't do?

 

[driewerf]

Evolution makes men out of monkeys.

Still better than what christianity does: reducing people to a flock.

 

[driewerf]

Their preaching to the choir, trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it.

They're. Like in They are.
It irritates me, as a non-native speaker to see people for whom English is their first language to mix up there, they're, their. And also your and you're.
/Grammar nazi rant

 

[Astrid]

They're. Like in They are.
It irritates me, as a non-native speaker to see people for whom English is their first language to mix up there, they're, their. And also your and you're.
/Grammar nazi rant

Some respect for the language
and for readers is called for.

 

[BCP1928]

They're. Like in They are.
It irritates me, as a non-native speaker to see people for whom English is their first language to mix up there, they're, their. And also your and you're.
/Grammar nazi rant

Yes, yes, you're right. It was a mistake, OK? I do know better--and the same thing annoys me, too--but I have the vision of an 80 year old (being one) and some things escape my proof-reading.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, yes, you're right. It was a mistake, OK? I do know better--and the same thing annoys me, too--but I have the vision of an 80 year old (being one) and some things escape my proof-reading.

Plus, auto- error volunteer's to put in
an apostrophe when plural was intended.

 

[BCP1928]

Plus, auto- error volunteer's to put in
an apostrophe when plural was intended.

Now that you mention it, spell check seems to have gotten a mind of it's own. Like that awful AI monster on Google that I haven't gotten around to figuring out how to turn off yet.

 

[Astrid]

Now that you mention it, spell check seems to have gotten a mind of it's own. Like that awful AI monster on Google that I haven't gotten around to figuring out how to turn off yet.

In Singapore I started trying to learn " Singlish"
which is now generally accepted as fully legit
language in its own.

A most interesting feature, imo, is its extreme
efficiency.

Suggested reading / YouTube check for details.

What goog would do to it when written, I hate to think.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still better than what christianity does: reducing people to a flock.

I'd rather be in a flock than a shrewdness.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, yes, you're right. It was a mistake, OK? I do know better--and the same thing annoys me, too--but I have the vision of an 80 year old (being one) and some things escape my proof-reading.

Alternatively, you could have asserted that your post should be read as -
Their preaching to the choir, [implicitly their trite attempts; their cliched attacks] trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it [are self serving].
In that case "their" would be correct. Bravo for choosing honesty.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they create a new function. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away.

Yeah, that's wrong, too. Random mutations can be observed to generate new functions at quite a respectable rate, we can observe closely related genes with different functions and reconstruct their origin in a gene duplication event as well as the mutations that led to a new function, and we can also identify the mutations that caused nonfunctional sequence to become functional in some species.

All of which is to say that we have very good evidence that random mutations can create new genes, can generate new molecular functions for existing or duplicated genes, and can generate new, markedly diverged phenotypes. So what exactly is it that you think mutations can't do?

Our last two posts are not mutually exclusive.

Corrupting information which specifies a particular function CAN create a 'new' function.
Again as in the example of a bear losing pigment in it's fur. The non pigmented/white fur provides a useful new 'function' as camouflage in the arctic.
And the same random entropy applies to the exhaust on a car- if it rusts and falls off, the car will go faster and get better mileage.

But it's still a loss of functional design information.
And crucially an evolutionary dead end; additional random corruption will never restore the original functions; pigment in the bears fur or a complete new exhaust system- the entropy works in one direction only, towards decay, degradation, regardless of whether that degradation happens upon an advantage in certain niche environments along the way.

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely destroying functional genetic information?

 

[Astrid]

Our last two posts are not mutually exclusive.

Corrupting information which specifies a particular function CAN create a 'new' function.
Again as in the example of a bear losing pigment in it's fur. The non pigmented/white fur provides a useful new 'function' as camouflage in the arctic.
And the same random entropy applies to the exhaust on a car- if it rusts and falls off, the car will go faster and get better mileage.

But it's still a loss of functional design information.
And crucially an evolutionary dead end; additional random corruption will never restore the original functions; pigment in the bears fur or a complete new exhaust system- the entropy works in one direction only, towards decay, degradation, regardless of whether that degradation happens upon an advantage in certain niche environments along the way.

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely destroying functional genetic information?

Are you trying to disprove / discredit
evolution, or understand it?

There's lots of questions about how it works.

That's the nature of things. Lots of questions
about electrucity, or the moon, say.

You seem to be working with some fundamentally
flawed concepts.

Aboutv" information" , entropy,.
" destroying functional genetic info".
Your take on entropy is painfully wrong.


You will never get anywhere with such a faulty foundation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to be working with some fundamentally flawed concepts.

About "information" , entropy, "destroying functional genetic info".

Your take on entropy is painfully wrong.

You will never get anywhere with such a faulty foundation.

QV please:

The Entropy of the Bible

I made up the formula:

HBible=Ø

It simply means the entropy of the Bible (throughout time) is zero.

 

[NxNW]

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely destroying functional genetic information?

Nobody is claiming such a thing happened.

 

[Astrid]

Nobody is claiming such a thing happened.

Except on creationist sites that
spcialize in deceiving earnest Christians.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nobody is claiming such a thing happened.

Most people don't, but you'd have to argue that with Darwinists, they literally still believe humans evolved from single celled bacteria like organism through purely random mutations!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you trying to disprove / discredit
evolution, or understand it?

There's lots of questions about how it works.

That's the nature of things. Lots of questions
about electrucity, or the moon, say.

You seem to be working with some fundamentally
flawed concepts.

Aboutv" information" , entropy,.
" destroying functional genetic info".
Your take on entropy is painfully wrong.


You will never get anywhere with such a faulty foundation.

Understand it.

As David Raup (paleontologist and curator of the Chicago Field Museum) said: if we look at the fossil record, we clearly see that evolution has occurred, if we define evolution as simply change over time, but it doesn't tell us how that change occurred, and that is really the question.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Most people don't, but you'd have to argue that with Darwinists, they literally still believe humans evolved from single celled bacteria like organism through purely random mutations!

And that's a problem for you. Everyone here gets that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And that's a problem for you. Everyone here gets that.

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely corrupting functional genetic information?

Take a swing a the substance of the scientific question, you sound like a reasonably intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you, you are not smart enough to actually debate this. You don't have to hit it out of the park in one go, none of us can, but give it a shot. Once you get past the standard internet ad hominem stuff, the science can actually get fairly interesting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely corrupting functional genetic information?

Take a swing a the substance of the scientific question, you sound like a reasonably intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you, you are not smart enough to actually debate this. You don't have to hit it out of the park in one go, none of us can, but give it a shot. Once you get past the standard internet ad hominem stuff, the science can actually get fairly interesting.

Well, considering that evolution and mutation don't work the way you say they work, then it's not really a problem at all for anyone but you!