Evidence for macroevolution

chickenman · Nov 27, 2002

creationist definitions always start with the assumption that evolution is false:

macroevolution - a form of evolution which is impossible (details change according to this first premise)

information - used in concert with the definition of macroevolution, the creationist definition of information is basically that which cannot arise via evolution (details change in accord with this premise)

kind - a classification of types of animals which form a distinct "kind" that are incapable of evolving into other "kinds" - if any speciation or evolution occurs to produce new types of animals , by definition, it is merely change within a kind

Matthew · Nov 29, 2002

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 <I>other</I> 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.

The information theory you are referring to is called "Shannon's theory". It has proven its usefulness in signal transmission, and statistics. But that theory never dealt with meaning. It would say that "akjsdfglaj" was more information than "box". And the reason has to do with the number of letters!

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 It's not peer-reviewed.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.

Creationists possess their own peer-reviewed journals. And this theory has been applied everywhere in implicit form. For example, SETI uses it. As for methods to define and measure, this is a newer theory. It is also more complex.

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?

Hmm... Another genetic fallacy and ad hominem!

Matthew · Nov 29, 2002

how so? explain please

You are correct in stating that hox genes are real. But your reason "they helped pattern your brain" is begging the question. The patterning of your brain is a new body plan. And if the addition of information is needed to add new body plans, then you are begging the question.

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.

Not really. It does take more information. Simply because specifying new body plans (birds have wings, reptiles do not, addition of wings is a new body plan) requires new information.

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

If we believe that evolution occured, then this is a possible method for it. This article simply assumes that if duplication of limbs by mutation of hox genes works, then addition of new body plans will also work.

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

If you don't know what you are posting about, don't post.

creationist definitions always start with the assumption that evolution is false:

As we will see, this is false.

macroevolution - a form of evolution which is impossible (details change according to this first premise)

Unused term. (addition/loss of information is preferred.)

information - used in concert with the definition of macroevolution, the creationist definition of information is basically that which cannot arise via evolution (details change in accord with this premise)

Wrong. Information def= specified complexity

kind - a classification of types of animals which form a distinct "kind" that are incapable of evolving into other "kinds" - if any speciation or evolution occurs to produce new types of animals , by definition, it is merely change within a kind

Wrong again. Kind def= any set of animals possessing a common ancestor. If animal x and animal y possess a common ancestor, then x and y belong to the same kind.

Jerry Smith · Nov 29, 2002

Wrong again. Kind def= any set of animals possessing a common ancestor. If animal x and animal y possess a common ancestor, then x and y belong to the same kind.

Thanks for the definition. Now please show that there exists one more "kind" of life... I think the evidence weighs strongly against the notion that there is more than one "kind" of life, as each organism seems to have shared a common ancestor with each other organism at some point in the past.

chickenman · Nov 29, 2002

Simply because specifying new body plans (birds have wings, reptiles do not, addition of wings is a new body plan) requires new information.

changes in existing gene expression can change morphology, so strictly speaking this is false. But duplication and divergence (the expansion of the hox cluster) can add information anyway.

Matthew · Nov 30, 2002

Thanks for the definition. Now please show that there exists one more "kind" of life... I think the evidence weighs strongly against the notion that there is more than one "kind" of life, as each organism seems to have shared a common ancestor with each other organism at some point in the past.

That is a good question. But I am trying to keep this thread focused on "gain/loss of information". Perhaps if posted under a new thread?

changes in existing gene expression can change morphology, so strictly speaking this is false.

Were I attempting to create a philosophically correct definition, then I would have taken that into account. So perhaps this definition will correct the problem:

Addition of information def= if for any organism x that is a ancestor of organism y: organism y possesses body plan p in its genotype AND organism x does not possess body plan p, then organism y has new information that it has gained.

But duplication and divergence (the expansion of the hox cluster) can add information anyway.

And I have yet to see any proof for this assertion.

chickenman · Nov 30, 2002

duplications happen, divergence happens - this can create genes with new functions

an analogy (that i've used numerous times)

cat

(duplication)

cat + cat

(divergence)

cat + mat

duplication provides redundancy which reduces the selective constraint on the genes and allows them to diverge to have new functions

the hox cluster expansion for instance:

Hox A gene

duplication

Hox A + Hox A

divergence

HoxA1 + HoxA2

which are expressed in different regions and have different downstream targets

I fail to see how that could be anything other than new information.

(would an entire genome duplication represent new information? http://www.genetics.wustl.edu/eddy/people/elena/genomedup/sankoff.html)

seebs · Nov 30, 2002

Originally posted by Matthew

Addition of information def= if for any organism x that is a ancestor of organism y: organism y possesses body plan p in its genotype AND organism x does not possess body plan p, then organism y has new information that it has gained.

What exactly do you mean by a "body plan"?

And I have yet to see any proof for this assertion.

The problem is that you're saying "I've never seen anyone build a brick wall", and whenever people show you a few bricks mortared together, and the way in which another brick can be added, you insist that, if we can't find a single step where we went from "no wall" to "wall", that no information was added, even though we can show "before" and "after" pictures, as well as a mechanism.

Big steps, in this case, consist of lots of little steps.

Matthew · Nov 30, 2002

What exactly do you mean by a "body plan"?

Feathers, lungs, other complex structures.

The problem is that you're saying "I've never seen anyone build a brick wall", and whenever people show you a few bricks mortared together, and the way in which another brick can be added, you insist that, if we can't find a single step where we went from "no wall" to "wall", that no information was added, even though we can show "before" and "after" pictures, as well as a mechanism.

The problem is that you are not showing natural examples of these steps. What you are showing is that you (an intelligent designer) is capable of adding information. (But I don't disagree with that statement.)

Big steps, in this case, consist of lots of little steps.

You are not a fan of punctated equilibrium then.

duplications happen, divergence happens - this can create genes with new functions

This is simply an assertion.

an analogy (that i've used numerous times)

cat

(duplication)

cat + cat

(divergence)

cat + mat

That is both simple (3 sequences) and intentional (done by an intelligent agent).

duplication provides redundancy which reduces the selective constraint on the genes and allows them to diverge to have new functions

That is a nice explanation. But it fails to provide evidence of any actual divergence

the hox cluster expansion for instance:

Hox A gene

duplication

Hox A + Hox A

divergence

HoxA1 + HoxA2

This example is not analagous to your previous one as it is both complex and unintentional!

which are expressed in different regions and have different downstream targets

I fail to see how that could be anything other than new information.

If a new function had actually arisen without the intervention of an intelligent agent, then you would have a point. But I still see no evidence of this.

(would an entire genome duplication represent new information?

Your reference assumes that:

1) Common ancestry is true AND

2) No intelligent agent ever intervened.

But historical evidence could never prove (2), and (1) I find quite doubtful.

seebs · Nov 30, 2002

Natural examples of changes of the sorts equivalent to adding a brick have been shown all over the place.

chickenman · Nov 30, 2002

duplications happen -

1: Arch Neurol 2002 Mar;59(3):474-7
Related Articles, Links

Unequal crossing-over in unique PABP2 mutations in Japanese patients: a possible cause of oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy.

Nakamoto M, Nakano S, Kawashima S, Ihara M, Nishimura Y, Shinde A, Kakizuka A.

Laboratory of Functional Biology, Graduate School of Biostudies, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.

BACKGROUND: Oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) is an adult-onset autosomal dominant muscle disease with a worldwide distribution. Recent findings reveal the genetic basis of this disease to be mutations in the polyA binding-protein 2 (PABP2) gene that involve short expansions of the GCG trinucleotide repeat encoding a polyalanine tract. The underlying mechanism causing the triplet-expansion mutation in PABP2 remains to be elucidated, although the DNA slippage model is thought to be a plausible explanation of that. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed PABP2 using polymerase chain reaction analysis and DNA sequencing in Japanese patients with pathologically confirmed OPMD, and found mutated (GCG)(6)GCA(GCG)(3)(GCA)(3)GCG and (GCG)(6)(GCA)(3)(GCG)(2)(GCA)(3)GCG alleles instead of the normal (GCG)(6)(GCA)(3)GCG allele. These mutated alleles could be explained by the insertions or duplications of (GCG)(3)GCA and (GCG)(2)(GCA)(3), respectively, but not by the simple expansion of GCG repeats. The clinical features of our patients were compatible with those of other Japanese patients carrying PABP2 that encodes a polyalanine tract of the same length, but were not compatible with those of Italian patients. CONCLUSIONS: The mutated alleles identified in our Japanese patients with OPMD were most likely due to duplications of (GCG)(3)GCA and (GCG)(2)(GCA)(3) but not simple expansions of the GCG repeats. Therefore, unequal crossing-over of 2 PABP2 alleles, rather than DNA slippage, is probably the causative mechanism of OPMD mutations. All mutations that have been reported in patients with OPMD so far can be explained with the mechanism of unequal crossing-over. On the other hand, comparison of the clinical features of our patients with those of other patients in previous reports suggests that specific clinical features cannot be attributed to the length of the polyalanine tract per se.

divergence happens

1: J Hum Genet 2002;47(3):140-5
Related Articles, Links

Ethnic divergence and linkage disequilibrium of novel SNPs in the human NLI-IF gene: evidence of human origin and lack of association with tuberculosis susceptibility.

Ma X, Wright J, Dou S, Olsen P, Teeter L, Adams G, Graviss E.

Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Sequence variation in the human genome has been used as a tool in studying human diseases and the evolutionary history of man. A human inherited predisposition to tuberculosis has been suggested and studied; however. genetic mechanisms are still ambiguous. In the present study, we scanned the regulatory and coding region of Nuclear LIM Interactor-Interacting Factor gene (NLI-IF), which is physically close to the tuberculosis-associated gene NRAMP1. Thirteen biallelic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were identified from four ethnic populations (African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Asian) with population-specific distribution of alleles. The extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between 402T > C, and 472- 42G > A varied distinctly from complete LD in the non-African-American groups to strong but incomplete LD in African-Americans. Both SNPs were in significant LD with the polymorphism 3' UTR in NRAMP1 among these ethnic groups (P < 0.02), except 402T > C in African-Americans. In a case-control study with a Caucasian population, three cosmopolitan SNPs (204C > A, 402T > C and 472 - 42G > A) in NLI-IF showed no significant association with human susceptibility to tuberculosis. Our results support the "out-of-Africa" model of human origin, and suggest the time for the common ancestor dispersing from Africa could not have been more than approximately 385,620 years ago.

PMID: 11950066 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

duplication + divergence is the most parsimonious explanation for the intragenomic homology that we see. Especially considering we have living examples of pre and post duplication organisms and we know that the additional genes in the post duplication organisms affect morphology

This example is not analagous to your previous one as it is both complex and unintentional!

exactly, NDT

If a new function had actually arisen without the intervention of an intelligent agent, then you would have a point. But I still see no evidence of this.

duplication and divergence can both occur independently of intelligence as witnessed in the above references (there are dozens of articles on duplications, and probably thousands on divergence) - the most parsimonious explanation for the data is therefore NDT. You can insert intelligence in the gaps if you want, but theres no evidence that it was required

Your reference assumes that:

1) Common ancestry is true AND

2) No intelligent agent ever intervened.

But historical evidence could never prove (2), and (1) I find quite doubtful.

historical evidence could never disprove (2) either. Evidence we have today suggests that complexity can arise via the NDT algorithm independent of intelligence. The question is whether intelligence was "needed" for the diversity of life. I believe the answer is no, NDT is capable of what the IDists attribute to intelligence

If you doubt (1) then theres a thread way back that provides compelling evidence for common ancestry in the form of the "urate oxidase pseudogene" theres also a link in there to the chromosome challenge

Matthew · Dec 4, 2002

Natural examples of changes of the sorts equivalent to adding a brick have been shown all over the place.

This is not an example, it is just an assertion.

duplications happen -

I agree.

divergence happens

This is quite vague. While I certainly allow for some kinds of divergence, I do not allow for all, as there is no evidence of information-enchancing divergence. (And this is not an example.)

duplication + divergence is the most parsimonious explanation for the intragenomic homology that we see. Especially considering we have living examples of pre and post duplication organisms and we know that the additional genes in the post duplication organisms affect morphology

I see no reason to believe that duplication and divergence can produce information. And the genotype was being discussed, not morphology alone.

exactly, NDT

Not quite. "Intentional" means "being done by an intelligent agent".

duplication and divergence can both occur independently of intelligence as witnessed in the above references (there are dozens of articles on duplications, and probably thousands on divergence) - the most parsimonious explanation for the data is therefore NDT. You can insert intelligence in the gaps if you want, but theres no evidence that it was required

I agree, duplication and divergence can occur independently of intelligence. But I do not believe that this is a reasonable explanation for information.

And the argument, "There is no evidence that it was required", "Therefore it was not required" is a fallacy (mistake in reasoning). All you are allowed to say (logically) is "I do not know how information was generated."

historical evidence could never disprove (2) either.

I wasn't argueing that there was proof in either direction from history. It just seemed that you were relying on a historical proof of (2).

Evidence we have today suggests that complexity can arise via the NDT algorithm independent of intelligence. The question is whether intelligence was "needed" for the diversity of life. I believe the answer is no, NDT is capable of what the IDists attribute to intelligence

Well, I would certainly be interested in this evidence.

If you doubt (1) then theres a thread way back that provides compelling evidence for common ancestry in the form of the "urate oxidase pseudogene" theres also a link in there to the chromosome challenge

All I am mentioning is that one cannot use common ancestry as proof for gain of information (because that is a historical argument). Further every scientist does not believe it. (But this is not really the intent of this thread.)

LiveFreeOrDie · Dec 4, 2002

Originally posted by Matthew
I see no reason to believe that duplication and divergence can produce information.

and

Well, I would certainly be interested in this evidence.

How about this:

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

Or maybe you want to ask the experimenter yourself:

http://www.rochester.edu/College/BIO/faculty/Hall.html

From 1972 through 1996 I worked on the experimental evolution of a new enzyme in E. colias a model for understanding how organisms evolve new functions. Strong selection applied to large populations allowed that new enzyme function to evolve as the result of spontaneous mutations in a previously unknown gene.

JohnR7 · Dec 6, 2002

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
"I am still waiting for their evidence that they can produce a grape from a fig tree. Or was it a olive from a grape vine?"

That would be cool. However, I don't see what impact it would have on evolution one way or the other.

This is something we have to deal with in our Bible.

Romans 11:17  And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,

The Hebrews were the origional tree. But as branches they were cut off of their own tree so that the gentiles could be grafted in. But the roots do not change the branches and the branches do not change the roots. Even though they can grow together.

Matthew · Dec 6, 2002

This is something we have to deal with in our Bible.

Romans 11:17  And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,

The Hebrews were the origional tree. But as branches they were cut off of their own tree so that the gentiles could be grafted in. But the roots do not change the branches and the branches do not change the roots. Even though they can grow together.

Those are metaphors! They have nothing do to with evolution! Further, the process of grafting has nothing to do with evolution.

I intend to respond to LFOD's evidence after I am finished checking it out. I do intend this to be a real converstion that stays on one topic.

lucaspa · Dec 10, 2002

Originally posted by Matthew No it isn't. They are not 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.

If that is the case, then their argument is refuted because data shows it can happen. However, to preserve the "it can't happen" they then move on to systems that haven't been studied. For instance, Behe's orginal definition of IC was any system where removal of any component made it nonfunctional.  Examples included flagella.  When Miller showed that different species had flagella missing pieces of Behe's IC flagella, Behe has attempted to change the definition of removal of the right components.

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.

It's in his No Free Lunch. As Demski says, the equation is the literature and it does give the right answer when we apply it to an example of increased information: sending out a dot or dash in Morse code.  So your disbelief doesn't change the truth. I just thought you'd be more willing to trust Dembski than an "evolutionist". 

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

Common misconception.  Choosing among possibilities is what increases information.  In the Morse code example, you also eliminated the dash as "unfit" in the environment you wanted.  But that choice, instead of eliminating information, increased the information you have.

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

Why not?  You have a calculator that can add, subtract, multiply, and divide.  Then you add the ability to take square root.  Isn't that new information to that calculator?  Haven't you, by adding a new ability, increased the information content of the program in the calculator?  If not, why not?

So, take a yeast and add the ability to germinate in the presence of D-alanine.  That has to be new information, doesn't it?  New information to recognize D-alanine and have it trigger the germination process.

 

lucaspa · Dec 10, 2002

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">Duplicating genes and chromosomes gives you more of the storage medium of the information, doesn't it?</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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

Matthew, follow what I'm saying: increasing information in biological organisms is a TWO-step process.  1. Mutations to provide the possibilities. Particularly duplicating genes and chromosomes to give you more DNA.  2. Selection among the possiblities.

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">The problem here is that it is difficult to separate "information" from the medium it is stored on.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Only if you don't know what information is.

Enlighten me.  Show me how you separate the information in biological organisms from the DNA that it is stored on.  How can you have information in biological organisms without molecules? 

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">Creationists often try to confuse the issue by using what I call the "shell game".</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

ad hominem.

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">They will say that information can't increase because natural selection can't increase DNA</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">and then say that information can't increase because increased DNA isn't increased information!</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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

Thank you for showing the shell game.  Natural selection can't increase information and then increasing DNA isn't increasing information.  Since you say increased DNA is not "necessarily" increased information, when is it? And when isn't it? And why for both?

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!)

I provided the "proof".  The information equation. You haven't shown me that this is an erroneous equation.  Mutation increases the variation. But, according to the equations, it's selection that actually increases information.

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">Taking the ancestor protein and having a mutation that added the carbonic anhydrase activity is the addition of information, isn't it?</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

No. It is not. It is reduced specificity.

I'm sorry, Matthew, but it's not reduced specificty because the specificity for the phosphatase hasn't changed. The enzyme is just as good at that reaction as it ever was.  It's just that now it has a new activity. And that new activity has to be new information: the information necessary to cleave carboxylic acid groups.

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2">duplications and mutations can increase information - for instance, the expansion of the hox cluster, which has been a major force in morphological evolution</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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

TI:    Arthropod evolution: same Hox genes, different body plans.
AU:    Averof-M
SO:    Curr-Biol. 1997 Oct 1; 7(10): R634-6 
 
Record 2 of 63 - MEDLINE EXPRESS (R) 1/98-5/98
 
TI:    Hox gene variation and evolution [news]
AU:    Meyer-A
SO:    Nature. 1998 Jan 15; 391(6664): 225, 227-8

TI:    Phylogenetic reconstruction of vertebrate Hox cluster duplications.
AU:    Bailey-WJ; Kim-J; Wagner-GP; Ruddle-FH
SO:    Mol-Biol-Evol. 1997 Aug; 14(8): 843-53

TI:    Gain of function mutations for paralogous Hox genes: implications for the evolution of Hox gene function.
AU:    Pollock-RA; Sreenath-T; Ngo-L; Bieberich-CJ
SO:    Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A. 1995 May 9; 92(10): 4492-6

TI:    Hox genes and the evolution of diverse body plans.
AU:    Akam-M
SO:    Philos-Trans-R-Soc-Lond-B-Biol-Sci. 1995 Sep 29; 349(1329): 313-9

This should get you started on the evidence.

Remember, increase of information is a two-step process.  You are playing the shell-game.  "duplication of genes ... is not increased information."  Now, if you get an increased number of limbs, don't you have to have increased information to tell the body to make those new limbs?

lucaspa · Dec 10, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7
[BThe 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>[/font]

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

"the scientists showed how modifications in the<I> </I>gene Ubxwhich suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies
You guys are just to funny. Thanks for the laugh. [/B]

Poor John. When confronted by the data, all you can do is try to poke fun. And call it a hoax.

 John, the paper shows the exact mutation that changes the limb number. Change just one serine to an alanine (and that's a single base change) and you get different numbers of limbs.  Not only is it macroevolution, but it is the exact genetic change to do it.

lucaspa · Dec 10, 2002

Originally posted by Matthew I see no reason to believe that duplication and divergence can produce information. And the genotype was being discussed, not morphology alone.

Matthew, look at the first phrase.  Doesn't that sound familiar? It is the same phrase atheists use to dismiss deity "I see no reason to believe a deity exists."  What you are expressing here is your personal opinion or stubborness, not whether the data actually shows the phenomenon.

I agree, duplication and divergence can occur independently of intelligence. But I do not believe that this is a reasonable explanation for information.

Try this paper:

Ohta T, J Theor Biol 1987 Jan 21;124(2):199-211 A model of evolution for accumulating genetic information.

National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan.

By taking into account recent knowledge of multigene families and other repetitive DNA sequences, a model of evolution by gene duplication for accumulating genetic information is studied. Genetic information is defined as the sum of distinct functions that the gene family can perform. A coefficient, "genetic diversity" is defined and used in this study, that is highly correlated with genetic information. Initially, a multigene family with a few gene copies is assumed, and natural selection starts to work on this gene family to increase genetic diversity contained in the gene family. As an important mechanism, unequal crossing-over is incorporated. Together with mutation, it is responsible for supplying genetic variability among individuals for selection to work. A specific model, in which individuals with less genetic diversity are selectively disadvantageous, has been studied in detail. Through approximate theoretical analysis and extensive Monte Carlo studies, it has been shown that the system is an extremely efficient way to accumulate genetic information.

And the argument, "There is no evidence that it was required", "Therefore it was not required" is a fallacy (mistake in reasoning). All you are allowed to say (logically) is "I do not know how information was generated."

What we are allowed to say is "information was generated by these material processes"  This refutes the statement "information was generated by an intelligent entity manufacturing the gene and placing it in the organism fully formed". 

Matthew · Dec 13, 2002

Matthew, look at the first phrase._ Doesn't that sound familiar? It is the same phrase atheists use to dismiss deity "I see no reason to believe a deity exists."_ What you are expressing here is your personal opinion or stubborness, not whether the data actually shows the phenomenon.

Straw man and ad hominem. I am expressing the opinion that the data does not show that phenomenon. You are expressing the opinion that it does. End of story. Do try to avoid fallacies.

Matthew, follow what I'm saying: increasing information in biological organisms is a TWO-step process._ 1. Mutations to provide the possibilities. Particularly duplicating genes and chromosomes to give you more DNA._ 2. Selection among the possiblities.

Try to follow what I am saying a bit better. If mutations did provide a new variety with more specified complexity, then it would have more information. The information is in the possibilites, not the ranges.

Enlighten me._ Show me how you separate the information in biological organisms from the DNA that it is stored on._ How can you have information in biological organisms without molecules?

You are asking the wrong question. The information is separate from the medium, but that does not mean one can create a biological organism without molecules. One could, however, type the information into a computer, remember it, or write it on a piece of paper.

Thank you for showing the shell game._ Natural selection can't increase information and then increasing DNA isn't increasing information.

You can call it what ever you want. I could call your antics "deliberate ignorance" but I do not.

Since you say increased DNA is not "necessarily" increased information, when is it? And when isn't it? And why for both?

Increased DNA is not "necessarily" increased information for the same reason that increased letters on a page are not "necessarily" increased information.

e.g.

Original message: I am home.
Addition 1: I am home. aghaslkjghlaekrjvbnarleiujertu
Addition 2: I am home. Please don't touch the stove.

Addition 2 contains more information while Addition 1 does not. Therefore increased letters do not mean increased information.

I provided the "proof"._ The information equation. You haven't shown me that this is an erroneous equation._ Mutation increases the variation. But, according to the equations, it's selection that actually increases information.

Information is in the possibilities, not in the range. Therefore selection does not increase information.

If that is the case, then their argument is refuted because data shows it can happen. However, to preserve the "it can't happen" they then move on to systems that haven't been studied. For instance, Behe's orginal definition of IC was any system where removal of any component made it nonfunctional._ Examples included flagella._ When Miller showed that different species had flagella missing pieces of Behe's IC flagella, Behe has attempted to change the definition of removal of the right components.

It would be good to read Behe carefully next time. His definition of system, and yours are not the same. Behe has only clarified his definition for Miller. He still claims that the flangellum is an IC system. Also, IC and information may be related, but they are not identical.

Evidence for macroevolution

evil unamerican

Active Member

Active Member

Fish out of water

evil unamerican

Active Member

evil unamerican

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

evil unamerican

Active Member

Science Officer

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency