Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

[P4g4nite]

pianoIsland,

next time you feel like posting that sort of post ....don't.

 

[Gracchus]

pianoIsland, next time you feel like posting that sort of post ....don't.

Maybe you should say "please"?

 

[lucaspa]

Can anyone provide me with a single incontrovertible example of new, non-pre-existing genetic information being produced (such as would have to have occured countless times for common descent to have occured)?

Several examples:
New Information via Evolution
1. Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
2. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB904.html
3. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB101_2.html
4. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4661_issue_16_volume_5_number_2__4_10_2003.asp#New%20Proteins%20Without%20God's%20Help
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...2&dopt=Abstract6. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/12/18547. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/inf...ipoprotein.html8. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf9. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/3485

 

[lucaspa]

On short notice, all I could suggest is that the parent bacterium was carrying a plasmid with this new trait, if it is indeed a new gene that is neither a duplicate copy of a pre-existing gene with modifications nor a degenerate version of a pre-existing gene.

jb, in getting new DNA it is going to be either 1) duplication of a pre-existing gene or 2) modification of an existing gene. So you are making a type of strawman here.

Remember, evolution is descent with modification. Not "creating something new from nothing". That last is creationism, not evolution. What you are saying in your requirement of "no pre-existing gene" is that creationism can't happen. Evolution can and does happen by modifying existing genes.

To get absolutely new DNA from scratch you have to go back to the beginning of life where DNA/RNA was built from nucleotides either by proteins that were made from amino acids or directly by chemical reactions of nucleotides joining.

Ever since directed protein synthesis evolved, all "new" DNA has resulted from copying mistakes of existing DNA. One copying mistake is to copy twice -- duplicate -- stretches of DNA. Either genes, parts of chromosomes, or even whole chromosomes. Since the original genetic material is still there, changes in the duplicated DNA won't disturb the function of the cell.

Or you can have copying mistakes that involve only one nucleotide (base) in the DNA. In the case of the nylonase enzyme, what happened was that there was a deletion muation. One of the nucleotides was not copied. Now, remember, there is no punctuation in the "words" of 3-base codons in DNA. So, if you add a "letter" (base) you completely randomly scramble the words downstream of the addition (or deletion, but the nylonase was an insertion). They are not at all the same as they were before the deletion. Brand new. In this case, the deletion created a protein where there wasn't one before by dropping a "stop" sequence and adding a "start" sequence. The result was a new protein with the ability to degrade nylon.

 

[lucaspa]

DNA, to produce proteins that function, must remain along the same line as the final string in this respect.

Not really. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. When the function is lacking in the popuation, even a little function is better than none. So, just the ability to cleave nylon to produce compounds that can be used by the Krebs cycle is an advantage. It doesn't have to work well, as long as it works at all. So your previous examples of being "close" to "meaning" are just fine. As long at some new food is generated, the lucky bacterium with the mutation will have more food than all the other bacteria. It will grow and reproduce.

Similarly, any new mutations in the DNA that give a higher activity will be selected, because then more food molecules will be generated. So you move stepwise to your final example. It doesn't have to be a single leap.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I just have to wonder at the mentality of someone who would start a thread with such poor grammar and so little thinking out.

Grammatically speaking, shouldn’t that read;

“One has to wonder at the mentality of someone who begins such an ill thought out thread with such poor grammatical structure”.

If we are going to criticise grammar rather than argument I mean.

Ghost

 

[jb-creation]

First and foremost, I must admit that I had never previously heard of this enzyme before, and therefore anything I could currently come up with in a response is simply foundless conjecture. I thought my previous posts had made that point clear.

In response to a few other recent comments, I must say that the analogy was that any protein with any function was to be represented by the final string. A protein with no function or a protein that does not form at all is useless and perhaps even detrimental.

I must also admit that my previous post was poorly phrased, as I have now observed rereading it and as was kindly pointed out by others. Perhaps I should simply ask a few questions:
What was the original function of said gene?
What sort of mutation was it (lucaspa, your post seems to indicate a deletion throughout most of the text, but switches gears in the middle and claims an insertion, after which your message reverts to the deletion)?

I could also ask how you propose life originated by purely natural means.

 

[Tomk80]

I could also ask how you propose life originated by purely natural means.

I would like to point out to you here that there is a difference between biological evolution and abiogenesis.
Biological evolution gives an explanation is to how the diversity of life arose, and poses it arose from the evolution of one ancestor. How this first ancestor arose, is explained by abiogenesis, not biological evolution. Please mark the difference.

Since you do not seem to know much about biological evolution, it might be wise to discuss this first in full, before we shift to the next topic. This keeps the discussion from jumping from one topic to another and becoming a big chaos. Agreed?

 

[Gracchus]

I would like to point out to you here that there is a difference between biological evolution and abiogenesis.
Biological evolution gives an explanation is to how the diversity of life arose, and poses it arose from the evolution of one ancestor. How this first ancestor arose, is explained by abiogenesis, not biological evolution. Please mark the difference.

Since you do not seem to know much about biological evolution, it might be wise to discuss this first in full, before we shift to the next topic. This keeps the discussion from jumping from one topic to another and becoming a big chaos. Agreed?

Tom80, the shift in topic indicates that jb-creation has no refutation of your argument. This form of concession without admission of defeat is very popular with creationists. It's an extreme form of shifting the goalposts, sometimes to second base.

 

[septembers_crash]

lucaspa, I want to make sure I understand your position fully before I jump to conclusions

When you said:

Remember, evolution is descent with modification.

Were you saying that Evolution is about modification in the sense that DNA is moved around or deleted through mutations?

 

[Tomk80]

Tom80, the shift in topic indicates that jb-creation has no refutation of your argument. This form of concession without admission of defeat is very popular with creationists. It's an extreme form of shifting the goalposts, sometimes to second base.

I know that, you know that, however, do they know it themselves? I want to find out, hence, my post. You never know, maybe, just maybe, here is a creationist who wasn't aware of this and know will watch his goal shifting so he actually stays on topic. I don't know, you don't know, but we'll find out

 

[P4g4nite]

"Grammatically speaking, shouldn’t that read;......."

Ouch, I cringed when I saw what I had written, and I was kinda hoping no-one would actually read it.

But then again, my respect for this forum has only increased since you were able to show that I am not setting the bar for wordsmithing.

 

[Crispie]

Shouldnt use opinions to support facts. Unless you are discussing to people of the same beliefs as you, for example christian to christian.

 

[Jet Black]

spam much?

 

[Vinegar]

jb-creation:

You appear to have given Iucaspa's very detailed and thoroughly referenced posts short shrift and I doubt you have followed them up. Maybe it needs to be simpler for you. I'll take you back to your first post, where you gave an example of typed "gibberish".

First, you make the assumption that genetic variation is a purely random process. It isn't. One clue is in your own observation that an organism starts with genes of a certain structure. That means, that the range of possible mutations is limited by both what the structure contains, and the chemical processes by which any changes are naturally governed. A more accurate depiction of a gene's components than the 26 letters of the alphabet would contain repeats of just four letters, represeting the amino acids that make up the 'runners' on the double helix DNA 'ladder'. Also, genes do not express themselves like words on a page. Both a DNA strand with ACGT at the centre, and one with CGTA, might produce a useful protein, possibly even the same protein, with or without a subtle or radical variation in final effect.

Segments of DNA occasionally become duplicated during copying. Duplication means increasing to twice the original amount. If that isn't "an increase" in genetic information, I don't know what is, and since you yourself equate genetic material with "information", duplication, which has been observed many times, disproves your hypothesis.

Not forgetting that, on occasion, entire chromosomes pop in or out of the genetic code. Horses have 64. Donkeys, which are descendants* of two species of wild African Azz (the on-board-nanny won't let me spell it with "ss"), have 62. Is a horse a mutant donkey, or a donkey a mutant horse? I'll let you ponder which contains "more information", and whether they are perhaps not a little related (they can, after all, breed to produce the 63-chromosomed mule), or well suited to their respective ecological niches, or capable of rendering up more information that a creationist argument can handle.

Where, exactly, does the rule of yours about "no new information" come from? Is there a proof lurking somewhere that is yet to see the light of day? Perhaps you would like to explain it to us. Seems to me, it might be logical gibberish.

(*as traceable through their DNA, the same way geneticists trace human lineages that can be confirmed by birth records)

 

[lucaspa]

I must say that the analogy was that any protein with any function was to be represented by the final string. A protein with no function or a protein that does not form at all is useless and perhaps even detrimental.

Every protein has some biological function or other. Either structural or enzymatic or both. It is a common mistake to think that only a few proteins have function.

Perhaps I should simply ask a few questions:
What was the original function of said gene?

I'll have to look it up, but it doesn't matter. It's a whole new protein now. What's more, as I remember it the insertion mutation changed the "stop" codon (there is a 3 base sequence that says "stop, this is the end of the protein") so that the new protein was bigger than the old.

What sort of mutation was it (lucaspa, your post seems to indicate a deletion throughout most of the text, but switches gears in the middle and claims an insertion, after which your message reverts to the deletion)?

My apologies. My memory was that it was deletion, but when I checked it at http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm again I found it was an insertion. I edited it to change my mistake but missed some references. You can see the exact insertion at the site and the changes in the nearby amino acids.

I could also ask how you propose life originated by purely natural means.

First, let's be careful about that phrase "purely natural". I'm afraid that here you have been led into a theological mistake by creationism. To say something is "purely natural" is to make the faith statement of atheism! Namely, natural = without God. Christianity forbids that statement and science won't support it, either. It's a statement of faith of atheism. Consider this description of "natural":
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Second, there is a material process that will convert non-living chemicals to living protocells. In fact, you can repeat the process in your own kitchen or backyard! So, it's not a "proposal" but a description of what has been demonstrated. Start here and read the site all the way thru and we can discuss it in more detail if you want.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa, I want to make sure I understand your position fully before I jump to conclusions

When you said:


Were you saying that Evolution is about modification in the sense that DNA is moved around or deleted through mutations?

No. Evolution is modification in that populations are modified in traits and structures over the course of generations. Evolution is about what happens to populations. That said, modification of the population starts with a modification to the DNA in one individual. But that would not be evolution because it is just one individual. What has to happen next is that modification has to spread -- over the generations -- so that eventually every individual in the population has it. The spread is done by the individual having more offspring than other individuals. This means that the next generation will have a few more individuals with the modification than the preceding generation. Is that clear so far?

As I said, sometimes the copying errors add DNA. Remember, a chromosome is a long string of DNA. Within that string are genes -- stretches of DNA. Sometimes individual genes are duplicated. That is, the enzymes that copy DNA will copy a gene twice instead of once, so the new chromosome is longer because it now has two copies of the same gene. In other cases called "translocation" part of a chromosome will be copied twice and the second copy will be added to another chromosome. In still another another mistake, the entire chromosome is copied. Today there is a species of rat called the visatch rat. Instead of 26 chromosomes, it has 51. Every chromosome but the sex chromosome was copied.

Finally, there are transposons. These are insertions of DNA into an existing chromosome. Again an addition of DNA.

In what are called "point" mutations, one base is substituted for another. That is, when copying a chromosome, the enzymes will make a mistake and put an adenine in the new chromosome instead of a thymine. No deletion because there are the same number of bases, but a modification.

 

[Sphere]

I couldnt help myself..im sorry..here goes:

Well I am totally new here but I wanted to share my thoughts on here about that subject. Evolution is so unrealistic lol I remember when I was in the 4th grade my teacher expected me to believe Dolphins had feet...

but genesis, talking snakes and magical trees is easier to believe.

if this is true what is the sole purpose of life and if this is all true is there any reason to go by rules like do not murder? I mean we are all gonna die someday so why not end our worry of death and get over it?

Your right! Since there's a god, and a heaven which is obviously better than this life, why don't you start doing things right now to help you get to heaven quicker? Not wearing your seatbelt while driving a car for instance, or not looking before crossing a street.

Why isn't evolution happening now? Because there was no such thing.I mean can a tin can create itself? No everything has a maker

So, you believe everything has a maker--except god? Just clarifying.

such as us we come from our parents or is it possible babies come from monkeys?

I see why you rejected it, you have no understanding of it. Im not surprised, please inform yourself in the future before making such ridiculous posts.

 

[L'Anatra]

Shouldnt use opinions to support facts. Unless you are discussing to people of the same beliefs as you, for example christian to christian.

I'm beginning to doubt that you know what a fact is.

 

[jb-creation]

I have a link here that could perhaps shed light on a new perspective, shall we say, of the nylon-degrading bacteria:
Unfortunately, it seems I do not have enough posts for a link, so I will merely direct you the Answers In Genesis website, where you should search for an article called "The Adaption of Bacteria to Feeding on Nylon Waste"

As for information, how about Information Theory? I'd give you some actual links if I could, so try checking out the 'Information Theory Q&A' section at AIG's website.

In regards to biological evolution having nothing at all to do with abiogenesis, permit me to point out that famed evolutionist G. A. Kerkut defined the 'general theory of evolution' as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." (Source: G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, p. 157)

Thanks for catching me on the topic shift. I'll try to focus on our current topic (which seems to be information in biology), but please catch me if I try to shift again.