Evidence for macroevolution

[Matthew]

LOL!! No, they aren't.&nbsp; They are just trying to shift the debate into an area where they <B>think</B> evolutionists don't have evidence.&nbsp; It's god-of-the-gaps theology at work.

No it isn't. They are not&nbsp;saying "we don't know" therefore "it didn't happen". They are saying "it can't happen" therefore "it didn't happen. This is a valid argument.

1. William Dembski, the darling of the IDers, has shown that natural selection <B>must</B> increase information!! <B>Whenever</B> you have a selection between possibilities, information increases. The equation is -log2(M/N)&nbsp; M is the entities selected and N is the total entities.&nbsp; Since natural selection has each population producing more individuals than are selected to survive and reproduce, information <B>must</B> increase with each generation.

First, I doubt that he actually believes such a thing. Provide references. Second, it doesn't matter if he does or not. The truth doesn't change with the beliefs of people.

Second, natural selection doesn't increase information. It conserves it. By eliminating those that are unfit, it removes that information.

2. Data.&nbsp; This, of course, is the deciding factor in any idea. Just a few of the examples showing increases in information (ability to do something new) we have:

Information and "the ability to do something new" are NOT identical!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Matthew
Information and "the ability to do something new" are NOT identical!

How come you can never get an IDer to tell you what information is, but they always seem to know what it is NOT?

 

[Matthew]

Duplicating genes and chromosomes gives you more of the storage medium of the information, doesn't it?

So what. That doesn't mean you have more information.

The problem here is that it is difficult to separate "information" from the medium it is stored on.

Only if you don't know what information is.

Creationists often try to confuse the issue&nbsp;by using what I call the "shell game".

ad hominem.

They will say that information can't increase because natural selection can't increase DNA

False. They say that natural selection cannot increase information. The two statements are not the same.

and then say that information can't increase because increased DNA isn't increased information!

False again. They say that increased DNA is not necessarily increased information. And again, the two statements are not the same.

It is the process of selection that&nbsp;increases the information.

Provide proof. (Besides, I don't think that you really understand your own position. Mutations (and other genetic processes) are supposed to increase information, not selection!)

Taking the ancestor protein and having a mutation that added the carbonic anhydrase activity&nbsp;is the addition of information, isn't it?

No. It is not. It is reduced specificity.

duplications and mutations can increase information - for instance, the expansion of the hox cluster, which has been a major force in morphological evolution

First, this statement needs support. Second, duplication of genes in the hox cluster that produce (say more limbs) are not increases in information.

 

[Matthew]

How come you can never get an IDer to tell you what information is, but they always seem to know what it is NOT?

An ad hominem and a question!

Information may be difficult to define, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't know what it is. As an example try defining "matter". Oh, and a list of examples does not a definition make.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Matthew
No. It is not. It is reduced specificity.

You must know how to measure "specificy" to say that. How do you measure "specificity"? How are "specificity" and information related?

You're the expert here. Enlighten us.

 

[chickenman]

duplications and mutations can increase information - for instance, the expansion of the hox cluster, which has been a major force in morphological evolution



First, this statement needs support. Second, duplication of genes in the hox cluster that produce (say more limbs) are not increases in information.

if they're not increases in information then we obviously don't need increases in information, because expansion of the hox cluster is capable of producing great morphological complexity and diversity

ref:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=8101001

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Matthew
An ad hominem

Wrong! I was actually begging the question.

Information may be difficult to define, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't know what it is.

So you're telling us that RM + NS can't increase information, but you can't tell us what information is. That makes it rather easy for you to win the argument, doesn't it?

What if I said:

"Coke is better than Pepsi. 'Better' may be difficult to define, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't know what it is."

As an example try defining "matter".

From dictionary.com:

matter - Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma

 

[Neo]

Evidence of macroevolution: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Neo
Evidence of macroevolution: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

"The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as<I> Hox"</I>

I think they got there spelling wrong on that. It is spelled Hoax.

"the scientists showed how modifications in the<I> Hox</I> [font="Arial, Helvetica"]gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies"[/font]

You guys are just to funny. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by JohnR7
"The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as<I> Hox"</I>

I think they got there spelling wrong on that. It is spelled Hoax.

"the scientists showed how modifications in the<I> Hox</I> [font="Arial, Helvetica"]gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies"[/font]

You guys are just to funny. Thanks for the laugh.

HUh? Hoax? huh?

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by JohnR7
"The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as<I> Hox"</I>

I think they got there spelling wrong on that. It is spelled Hoax.

"the scientists showed how modifications in the<I> Hox</I> [font="Arial, Helvetica"]gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies"[/font]

You guys are just to funny. Thanks for the laugh.

That article isn't a hoax, it's real.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by seesaw
HUh? Hoax? huh?

Common: HOX GENE UBX Do you really expect us to take this serious? Hox is to close to the word Hoax.

Of course I did not believe they would ever be able to clone sheep, tell they at least five or six different people did it with the same results.

Just finding a gene that will suppress leg development does not turn a shrimp into a fly.

You would be better off to go back to using a tadpole to support your claim. At least then you could use real photos and not drawing.

 

[chickenman]

don't prod the scientists john, or they'll begin to spew evidence you don't want to see:

Conservation and elaboration of Hox gene regulation during evolution of the vertebrate head.

Manzanares M, Wada H, Itasaki N, Trainor PA, Krumlauf R, Holland PW.

Division of Developmental Neurobiology, MRC National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, UK.

The comparison of Hox genes between vertebrates and their closest invertebrate relatives (amphioxus and ascidia) highlights two derived features of Hox genes in vertebrates: duplication of the Hox gene cluster, and an elaboration of Hox expression patterns and roles compared with non-vertebrate chordates. We have investigated how new expression domains and their associated developmental functions evolved, by testing the cis-regulatory activity of genomic DNA fragments from the cephalochordate amphioxus Hox cluster in transgenic mouse and chick embryos. Here we present evidence for the conservation of cis-regulatory mechanisms controlling gene expression in the neural tube for half a billion years of evolution, including a dependence on retinoic acid signalling. We also identify amphioxus Hox gene regulatory elements that drive spatially localized expression in vertebrate neural crest cells, in derivatives of neurogenic placodes and in branchial arches, despite the fact that cephalochordates lack both neural crest and neurogenic placodes. This implies an elaboration of cis-regulatory elements in the Hox gene cluster of vertebrate ancestors during the evolution of craniofacial patterning.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Common: HOX GENE UBX Do you really expect us to take this serious? Hox is to close to the word Hoax.

Of course I did not believe they would ever be able to clone sheep, tell they at least five or six different people did it with the same results.

Just finding a gene that will suppress leg development does not turn a shrimp into a fly.

You would be better off to go back to using a tadpole to support your claim. At least then you could use real photos and not drawing.

No it's real ScienceDaily talks about it. Hox is just the name of it. I think.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm

 

[chickenman]

1: Bioessays 2002 Nov;24(11):992-5
Related Articles, Links


fushi tarazu: a Hox gene changes its role.

Damen WG.

Institut fur Genetik, Universitat zu Koln, Weyertal 121, D-50931 Koln, Germany. damen@uni-koeln.de

The Hox genes play a role in anteroposterior axis specification of bilaterian animals that has been conserved for more than 600 million years. However, some of these genes have occasionally changed their roles in evolution. For example, the insect gene fushi tarazu (ftz), although localised in the Hox cluster, no longer acts as a Hox gene, but is involved in segmentation and nervous system development. Recent data of Mouchel-Vielh et al., and Hughes and Kaufman on ftz homologues in a crustacean and a myriapod, respectively, shed new light onto the evolution of this gene. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Periodicals, Inc.

PMID: 12386929 [PubMed - in process]

1: Dev Biol 2002 Sep 1;249(1):1-15
Related Articles, Links


The Hox Paradox: More complex(es) than imagined.

Prince V.

Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, Committees on Developmental Biology, Neurobiology, Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Chicago, Il 60637, USA. vprince@midway.uchicago.edu

An understanding of the origin of different body plans requires knowledge of how the genes and genetic pathways that control embryonic development have evolved. The Hox genes provide an appealing starting point for such studies because they play a well-understood causal role in the regionalization of the body plan of all bilaterally symmetric animals. Vertebrate evolution has been characterized by gene, and possibly genome, duplication events, which are believed to have provided raw genetic material for selection to act upon. It has recently been established that the Hox gene organization of ray-finned fishes, such as the zebrafish, differs dramatically from that of their lobe-finned relatives, a group that includes humans and all the other widely used vertebrate model systems. This unusual Hox gene organization of zebrafish is the result of a duplication event within the ray-finned fish lineage. Thus, teleosts, such as zebrafish, have more Hox genes arrayed over more clusters (or "complexes") than do tetrapod vertebrates. Here, I review our understanding of Hox cluster architecture in different vertebrates and consider the implications of gene duplication for Hox gene regulation and function and the evolution of different body plans.

hox genes are quite real, you have some in fact - they helped pattern your brain

 

[Matthew]

hox genes are quite real, you have some in fact - they helped pattern your brain

You are begging the question (a fallacy).

No it's real ScienceDaily talks about it.

That happens to be an argument from authority (another fallacy).

&nbsp;

Hox is just the name of it. I think.

Yes, that is the name of it (the full name is Homeobox). And it is not a hoax. These genes are involved in regulation of body plans and development.

Just finding a gene that will suppress leg development does not turn a shrimp into a fly.

Close. This mutation does not increase information. And increase of information is needed (eg. to evolve reptiles into birds).

So you're telling us that RM + NS can't increase information, but you can't tell us what information is. That makes it rather easy for you to win the argument, doesn't it?

Yes RM + NS cannot increase information. Yes I can tell you what information is. Information def= specified complexity. (My statement did not say that information could not be defined, only that it was difficult.)

if they're not increases in information then we obviously don't need increases in information, because expansion of the hox cluster is capable of producing great morphological complexity and diversity

Another instance of question begging.

 

[Morat]

What is specified complexity?

See, here's the problem. You've thrown aside standard information theory, which has proven it's usefullness and applicability in many fields (as well as showing it works quite well) and replaced it with some other version of information theory.

It's worth noting the differences:

1) Standard Information Theory. It's been around for several decades. It's been used in several fields (rather heavily in computing), is rigorous, well-defined, peer-reviewed and has basically shown itself to be a very useful, very accurate way to define and measure information. Under Information theory, at least this sort, evolution constantly adds new information.

2) Creationist Information Theory. It's brand new. It's not being used anywhere but Creationist literature. It's not peer-reviewed. It's never been applied to any field but biology (not computer science, not telecomunications, nothing). It lacks a rigorous way to define and measure information. According to CIT, evolution does not add new information.

Now, hmm...which version is more trustworthy when it comes to evolution? The one invented for telecomunications, taught and studied in universities all over the world? Or the one created by people with an ideological opposition to evolution, used only on evolution, and claims evolution doesn't add information?

Geez, I dunno guys.

 

[chickenman]

hox genes are quite real, you have some in fact - they helped pattern your brain

You are begging the question (a fallacy).

how so? explain please

 

[chickenman]

This mutation does not increase information. And increase of information is needed (eg. to evolve reptiles into birds).

how do you know that an increase in information (by your definition) is required? you don't, you're merely asserting that it is so. One of the above articles shows that co-option of existing developmental genes may have been responsible for the evolution of the vertebrate head - simple changes in expression of existing genes

 

[WinAce]

The funny thing is, by the creationist definition, God designing life couldn't qualify as "new information"...