How is new DNA supposed to evolve?

[Micaiah]

From what I can gather, many evolutionists agree that their is a net increase DNA information in the supposed evolution from 'slime to scientist'. Some are still trying to work out the meaning of genetic information. No need to get bogged down in semntics at this stage.

Next question. How does the new DNA get formed to produce the various things we see in a scientist, which were not in the supposed first simple cell. ie. brain, eye, leg etc.

I'm looking for the genetic processes that caused the change in the DNA. I'd like to hear an explanation in your own words. Feel free to provide links after that.

 

[Amalthea]

Is it 'slime to scientist' or 'carbon to creationist'?

 

[notto]

Evolution 101 - types of mutations.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC3aTypes.shtml

There is also the case of full Chromosome duplication. This can be seen in plants quite often and genetic evidence points to it happening in animals as well.

 

[gluadys]

Next question. How does the new DNA get formed to produce the various things we see in a scientist, which were not in the supposed first simple cell. ie. brain, eye, leg etc.

I think there is a confusion here between the mechanism of producing new DNA and the coding link between DNA and a particular body part.

It doesn't matter what the final output is (brain, eye, leg, etc.) The method of producing new DNA is the same--the mutations described in the link above.

Secondly, there is not a simple one-to-one ratio between DNA and a complex organ such as the eye. What DNA codes for are proteins, not organs. What the functions of those proteins will be (and even if they will have functions) is a different question.

The development of organs requires some other factors in addition to mutation and new DNA. One is specialization. That requires that cells at least live in colonies so that cells can specialize in one function or another and still survive. Eventually you get multicellularity.

Another is natural selection, and here we enter a whole new ball game, because natural selection does not operate directly on specific DNA sequences or even on specific character traits which express those DNA sequences. Natural selection works on the basis of the overall fitness of organisms. So it is not just a measure of how well a leg or an eye work, but of how well all the systems of the body work together.

So the key to organ development is not only a coding change that allows the beginning of an organ, and the subsequent improvement of an organ over time, but also whether it contributes to the overall fitness of the organism such that those with the trait are more likely to reproduce than those without it.

 

[seebs]

Let's use an analogy. Imagine that fragments of DNA are letters.

The simplest DNA might be "A".

There are several kinds of changes you might see.

1. Duplication. "A" becomes "AA".
2. Replacement. "A" becomes "B".
3. Deletion. "AA" becomes "A".

From these, you can make anything. For instance, here's a possible chain from "A" to "BEER".

A
AA (duplication)
BA (change)
BABA (duplication)
BAA (deletion)
BAC (change)
BAF (change)
BAH (change)
BAJ (change)
BAL (change)
BAR (change)
BER (change)
BEER (duplication)

See? Nothing ever happens except changes, duplication, and deletion, but suddenly we have a lot of "new information".

Now, the next question is, why would some changes become common. The answer is, if a change is more likely to be reproduced than the thing it is a change from, then it will become more common over time.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My answer to this question is the same as in the previous thread on this topic.

The amount of DNA in this world increases whenever a cell duplicates, a process known as mitosis. This is happening all the time when your hair grows, skin grows back, blood cells get replaced in your spleen, etc.

Depending on your definition of information, new information in DNA happens all the time as well in sexual reproduction when a sperm and an egg join in a process known as meiosis which creates new genes and combinations of genes in a step of meiosis called recombination. Other ways of having new genetic information include genetic mutations.

DNA is constantly changing with every sperm and egg that is joined at conception. Of course a new gene arrangement due to recombination does not contribute to the evolution of a species, but it definitely results in an increase in genetic information.

The various types of mutations passed on to offspring are the significant increases in genetic information that do result in new species and physical traits like changes in tissue and complex organs.

 

[Micaiah]

Is this the best we can do. I do not find it very convincing. If the statements made here form the basis of belief in the human DNA evolving from the supposed first traces of life, I can only say some people are gullible.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

They don't. They demonstrate that the mechanism through which it can occur is reasonable.

The evidence that it did is much more than this.

 

[Micaiah]

And they complain about the YEC's not understanding the TOE.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Is this the best we can do. I do not find it very convincing. If the statements made here form the basis of belief in the human DNA evolving from the supposed first traces of life, I can only say some people are gullible.

That is ok if you aren't convinced. But if you are seriously trying to understand how the scientific community understands changes in genetic information, high school genetics (without even getting into the evolution unit) provides all the basic tools for understanding how genetic information increases in living cells.

It is more controversial when talking about how non-living matter produces the increases in genetic information required to have living cells in abiogenesis.

 

[notto]

Can you let us know what you have read and what specifically you find unconvincing? You were given some very basic stuff. If you want additional stuff, then let us know. We can point you to locations where you can look up the peer reviewed research, data, and results of the evidence that is used to form the theory of evolution and our understanding of DNA and mutations.

You asked a very basic question and were given very basic answers. You would be able to find much more (and would have found the answers to your initial question) just by using google or reading a basic biology textbook. Have you done this?

 

[Micaiah]

From what I've read here, it appears that few TE's have an appreciation of what you call high school genetics. I'm prepared to suspend my judgement further if there are others that can provide a more coherent explanation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

From what I've read here, it appears that few TE's have an appreciation of what you call high school genetics. I'm prepared to suspend my judgement further if there are others that can provide a more coherent explanation.

An appreciation of the basics is required to comprehend the more complex. The question, "How does genetic information increase" is a very basic question that can be answered in a basic way.

If you have a more complex question, like "how do physical traits evolve from single celled organisms to human beings?" you'll get a more complex answer which involves the basic concept of increases in genetic information.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

From what I've read here, it appears that few TE's have an appreciation of what you call high school genetics. I'm prepared to suspend my judgement further if there are others that can provide a more coherent explanation.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my undergraduate level genetics, thank you very much. I've seen precious little scientific content or input from you. I don't think you're really one to judge. It seems from other threads you prefer to spend your time slagging off TEs as not proper Christians like those perfect faithful (and dishonest lying) YECs.

 

[notto]

From what I've read here, it appears that few TE's have an appreciation of what you call high school genetics. I'm prepared to suspend my judgement further if there are others that can provide a more coherent explanation.

What specifically has been missing from the responses that would lead you to this conclusion?

Do you equate DNA material to information?

 

[Micaiah]

Have a look at the first post. The request is clear. Yes, I am seeking a more detailed explanation on the processes assumed to give rise to the net increase in genetic information from 'slime to scientist'. I'm asking for an explanation in your own words, or even your own paraphrase of what some of the links say. I'm quite comfortable with the usual genetic terms being used.

Bring it on.

 

[notto]

Take a look at gluadys post. That is a good start.

1) mutations happen which cause variety in any population both at the genetic level and at the physical level.
2) natural selection acts on this variety to favor and preserve differences that are beneficial to survival, or in some organisms, differences that caused sexual selection.
3) Some of these mutations involve additons to the DNA so the next generation will have 'more' DNA or novel information in it from the past generation.
4) Overall, this process can increase the net DNA in an organism, sometimes even drastically with fully duplicated Chromosomes (which, in the next genereation, can the each be affected by mutatioin to create completely new chromosomes).

Each of the mechansism used in this description have been observed to have happened. We also see specialization and colony diversification in currently living organisms that indicates that this is how mutli-cellular oranisms evolved. Again, we can see this happening today.

All evolution needs is a source for diversity of heritable genetic information and physical form. The DNA provides both of these. Just just as Darwin predicted.

 

[Gold Dragon]

the processes assumed to give rise to the net increase in genetic information from 'slime to scientist'

The processes have already been described to you in our own words.

I think what you are looking for is how those processes are involved in the steps in the evolutionary process from 'slime to scientist'. Is that what you want? Because that is a very different question that you haven't asked yet.

Also, Abiogensis talks about from 'slime to single-celled organism' and is much more scientifically controversial than Evolution which talks about from 'single-celled organism to scientist'.

 

[seebs]

Is this the best we can do. I do not find it very convincing. If the statements made here form the basis of belief in the human DNA evolving from the supposed first traces of life, I can only say some people are gullible.

This is derisive and derogatory, but doesn't actually show any specific problems.

What you see here is not the basis of the belief; it is an attempt to break down into little tiny bite-sized chunks a specific claim so you can see how it works. The basis for the belief is the huge amount of evidence from disparate sources for common descent.

What we're looking at here is responses to an alleged problem with that belief. All we need to do, to win this, is to show that a process like evolution can result in "new information". Which we've done, and which you haven't rebutted or addressed at all, except with personal attacks.

 

[gluadys]

Have a look at the first post. The request is clear. Yes, I am seeking a more detailed explanation on the processes assumed to give rise to the net increase in genetic information from 'slime to scientist'. I'm asking for an explanation in your own words, or even your own paraphrase of what some of the links say. I'm quite comfortable with the usual genetic terms being used.

Bring it on.

Your basic problem here is that you are trying to pin all of evolution on changes in DNA. Look at your first post.

How does the new DNA get formed to produce the various things we see in a scientist, which were not in the supposed first simple cell. ie. brain, eye, leg etc.

I'm looking for the genetic processes that caused the change in the DNA. I'd like to hear an explanation in your own words. Feel free to provide links after that.

You connected "new DNA" with the production of "various things" such as a brain, an eye, a leg, etc. You asked specifically for "genetic processes".

And in this post you are still focused on "processes assumed to give rise to the net increase in genetic information".

Well, these genetic processes have already been explained to you, but I agree, they don't, on their own, provide a convincing explanation for the origin of multicellularity, specialization of cell function or organs and organ systems.

That is because genetic change---even genetic change that leads to an increase in information---is not what causes evolutionary change.

You absolutely must consider the role of natural selection as well. Without natural selection to determine the impact of genetic change on the next generation, you do not have evolution.