no evidence for evolution

Morat · Jun 20, 2002

And I gave it to you: formation of the heart. A simple mutation to a muscle that, over a long period of time, became a four chambered heart.

Others gave it to you: formation of a complex hemoglobin system.

You keep shifting the goalposts back. Where I to list every mutation that created the heart from an unpowered circulatory system, you would whine that the circulatory system already existed.

randman · Jun 20, 2002

"A simple mutation to a muscle that, over a long period of time, became a four chambered heart."

Are you stating that one simple mutation is all it would take?

How many mutations would it take to make that muscle into a 4-chambered heart? You guys state things like a "simple mutation", and we are looking for an observed mutation, simple or not, and an analyis of the additional mutations needed, and sufficient explanation that each step confers a selective advantage, and would be a dominate trait that wouldn't die out.

Take hominid evolutionary hypothesesis. Presumably a good bit of in-breeding is required to create a whole group with the same mutations. Wouldn't this have negative consequences?

Jerry Smith · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by randman
"A simple mutation to a muscle that, over a long period of time, became a four chambered heart."

Are you stating that one simple mutation is all it would take?

No.

How many mutations would it take to make that muscle into a 4-chambered heart? You guys state things like a "simple mutation", and we are looking for an observed mutation, simple or not, and an analyis of the additional mutations needed, and sufficient explanation that each step confers a selective advantage, and would be a dominate trait that wouldn't die out.

You can't observe a mutation that took place 1 billion years ago. Sorry. I'll let you apply the genetic principles that you have learned to propose an explanation for how each step could have occurred that did confer a selective advantage. You are the one who cares about finding this out, you do the work.

Take hominid evolutionary hypothesesis. Presumably a good bit of in-breeding is required to create a whole group with the same mutations. Wouldn't this have negative consequences?

Formulate a model based on the individual trait difference between any human ancestor and humans, use your understanding of population genetics to determine what minimum population density and what degree of in-breeding would be necessary for this to work. We already know it happened. The evidence is in the genes. The evidence is in the fossils. You can use the mutations we know about, or you can prove some other kind of mutation or mechanism must have been necessary. Go for it. Let us know your results.

Morat · Jun 20, 2002

Are you stating that one simple mutation is all it would take?

Nope. Only that the process began with one, tiny, almost unnoticable change.

Not a big giant one. But a little one.

How many mutations would it take to make that muscle into a 4-chambered heart?

Beats me. Why does it matter how many? Hearts have been evolving a long, long time.

All that matter is, as they say, you can get there from here. A simple heart (a muscle that flexes) moves blood. No muscle there moves nothing. So better circulation. A muscle that flexes automatically does better than one that flexes as a result of movement. One that narrows at one end (or both. Symetry is common in things like this, due to the way DNA works) would increase pressure, thus efficiency. That's the beginning of a chamber.

You don't seem to grasp the simple concepts here. That one mutation, that led to a pseudo-heart, split the animal kingdom in two. Those with pseudo-hearts (however tiny and almost useless) and those that didn't. The same way the first primative spinal chord did.

When it happened, the difference between vertebrate and invertebrate were immaterial. They were almost the same. You probably couldn't even tell by looking at them what the difference was. But a billion years later, their descendents are utterly different.

You guys state things like a "simple mutation", and we are looking for an observed mutation, simple or not, and an analyis of the additional mutations needed, and sufficient explanation that each step confers a selective advantage, and would be a dominate trait that wouldn't die out.

I see. So you think "proof" for evolution would be a DNA sequance and complete, undecayed body for every animal of every species ever to live?

How do you get anything done? Oh, you must have different levels of proof for everything else.

Take hominid evolutionary hypothesesis. Presumably a good bit of in-breeding is required to create a whole group with the same mutations. Wouldn't this have negative consequences?

No. Why would you think it required inbreeding?

Any advantageous mutation would spread out, through his/her descendents.

Going back to the eye example. Let's say all of Hominid Species X have brown eyes. One day, a mutation happens, and a boy with blue eyes is born. (For simplicity's sake, let's assume it's a dominant trait). Let's assume again that blue eye's have positive selective pressure, and thus confer improved fitness.

Blue-eyed boy lives a long time. He's more successful. He has lots of kids. More than average. His kids also tend to live longer and have more kids. Each generation, more and more of the population has blue eyes.

All it takes to spread a gene around is having a slightly higher number of kids than average.

Give it a thousand years or so, and the allele is well and truly spread around.

Inbreeding happens with dogs, because you're getting results fast. Artificial selection has problems natural does not.

randman · Jun 20, 2002

The problem with the gradualistic scenario you painted is that the fossil record doesn't support this. Species don't appear to gradually change. The idea has been put forth then that isolated groups that were separated, whether geographically or otherwise, evolved into new species and so forth.

The problem, of course, with the isolation scenario is in-breeding generally has negative, not positive, long-term results.

Morat · Jun 20, 2002

Wrong, randman. The fossil record documents several nicely gradualistic scenarios. Whales, horses, and even Gould's snails. (He had to have the fine-grain to support his paper).

Wrong again on inbreeding. "Isolated groups" is not "four or five individuals".

Do you know, offhand, how many individuals it takes for a clean gene pool? Please, let me know. I'm curious.

Now, I'm willing to bet anyone with a degree in population genetics could answer it, but I'm curious if you can.

So, how many?

Lanakila · Jun 20, 2002

Natural selection can only discriminate functional process and survivability within pre-existing information. Before you guys start yelling about information again. Let me explain it a little more clearly. Within all biological systems there exists a chemical code (DNA) of structural information (i.e., a physical representation of a conceptual schema)that contains all data regarding the design of the host entity. Natural selection has no ability to develop anything novel that does not previously exist in the DNA matrix. Natual selection manipulates the data, but does not create such data.

Genetic mutation proposes that random mutations (i.e., genetic "mistakes" with the DNA) actually produce the benefical material from which natural selection selects and preserves. However, in the same context as natural selection, mutations are genetic mistakes within the pre-existing data of the DNA sequence, and have no ability to "create" any new information but merely manipulates and actually produces a loss of genetic material.

Natural selection is actually hereditary variation around a genetic median. That is a mutation via a DNA duplication error, will not and cannot eventually code for a new gene within a unique function and/or regulatory apparatus. For instance, the classic example of peppered moths, or more recently antibiotic resistence in bacteria, merely reflect programmed instrumentation of adaptive mechanisms. Variation within a species to accomodate environmental changes does not "create" anything new, it only manipulates and manages existing information relative to such.

Information theory is a relativly new discipline of mathematics which analyzes the definition, nature, and function of information or data. This theory defines information in contrast to mere repetitive/ periodic order, as any quantity of data that manifests specified aperiodic complexity (i.e., systematic organization) towards a functional end or purpose.

This material is from a paper my hubby is working on, it has not been published. He got alot of this information from the book by Gitt. Bibliographical information is on page 13 of this thread.

Jerry Smith · Jun 20, 2002

Lanakila,

Isn't it a bit naive to post this particular line of argument now? Maybe you don't understand the deconstruction of it we have shown you.

For instance:
1) Information is not quantifiable. Without it being quantifiable, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about how it can or cannot be added.
2) We have already shown you that mutations work in ways that can produce the necessary variety for natural selection to work upon to accomplish evolutionary change. This more or less makes the "information" analysis redundant. Furthermore claims from the analysis of information must at least be consistent with the known results that are already understood.

Let us pretend for a moment that there are four ways to pronounce the letter "z" (one that sounds like an 'a', one like a 'b', one like a 'c' & one like a 'd').

Let us pretend that the theory of baboonism requires the letter "z" to be in a word that sounds like "dog".

Let us pretend that I think the theory of baboonism is wrong, and proceed to demonstrate my criticism by pointing out that there are only three ways that the letter "z" can be pronounced: "a", "b", & "c" & that since none of those sounds are in a word that sounds like "dog", then the theory must be wrong.

Let us then pretend that a linguist points out to me that there is a fourth way to pronounce "z" which is like the sound of "d".

Really, what basis do I have to continue with my argument, until I can demonstrate that the linguist is wrong?

Must I not learn the subject of linguistics before I can hope to do so?

Lanakila · Jun 20, 2002

Did you actually read my post, I explained what I mean by information. The DNA in the organism. No we can't quantify it, thats the point. Mutations only lose, or rearrange the same genetic information. This argument is sound.

Jerry Smith · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by Lanakila
Did you actually read my post, I explained what I mean by information. The DNA in the organism. No we can't quantify it, thats the point. Mutations only lose, or rearrange the same genetic information. This argument is sound.

Why do you keep repeating this statement when you have made no effort to prove it is true, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that it ISN'T true by your definition or by any reasonable definition of "information"?

Morat · Jun 20, 2002

Natural selection can only discriminate functional process and survivability within pre-existing information.

Very good. Yes, natural selection can only select amongst information that already exists. There's a reason it's considered only half the story, you know.

Before you guys start yelling about information again.

Did you ever sit down and listen to what we're yelling about?

Becaust this conversation has gotten really old. It's you making an assertation, us explaining the problem with it, and then you repeating the assertation.

So my question is: Are you even reading our posts? If so, why aren't you responding to our objections? Do you think merely repeating yourself will somehow answer them?

Let me explain it a little more clearly. Within all biological systems there exists a chemical code (DNA) of structural information (i.e., a physical representation of a conceptual schema)that contains all data regarding the design of the host entity.

You're confusing medium with message. That's a no-no in information theory.

DNA is the medium. Protein folding, and the eventual rise of structure, is the message.

Oh, by the way, you also have tons of junk, redunant code, and stuff that's turned off.

Natural selection has no ability to develop anything novel that does not previously exist in the DNA matrix. Natual selection manipulates the data, but does not create such data.

Once again, you are correct. Natural selection merely winnows through variation, like a gold-miner panning a stream.

Genetic mutation proposes that random mutations (i.e., genetic "mistakes" with the DNA) actually produce the benefical material from which natural selection selects and preserves.

No. Genetic mutations happen. A wide variety of them.

The effects of these mutations can vary (often they have no effect, taking place in non-coding DNA). Whether these effects are beneficial or not depends entirely on enviroment.

However, in the same context as natural selection, mutations are genetic mistakes within the pre-existing data of the DNA sequence, and have no ability to "create" any new information but merely manipulates and actually produces a loss of genetic material.

This is incorrect. Is there a reason you refuse to address our objections? Genetic mutations cause a change. PERIOD. Loss or gain of information may occur, but the mutation itself is a change.

In a strech of non-coding DNA, a point mutation will result in neither an increase nor decrease in information, correct?

What method are you using to measure information? By any formal measure of information, a duplication event followed by a single point mutation is the addition of information.

You refuse to address this statement, you refuse to give examples of what you would consider "new information", and continue to repeat yourself.

Which is it? Are you unwilling to address the objections, or unable?

Natural selection is actually hereditary variation around a genetic median.

Natural selection is the process by which allele frequencies change over time, yes.

That is a mutation via a DNA duplication error, will not and cannot eventually code for a new gene within a unique function and/or regulatory apparatus.

This is, once again, mere assertation that does not address the numerous objections we have raised.

Including such well known mutations as the ones which increased resistance to heart attacks in humans, allowed bacteria to digest nylon, and a host of others!

Back this up. Address our objections. Are you unwilling or unable?

For instance, the classic example of peppered moths, or more recently antibiotic resistence in bacteria, merely reflect programmed instrumentation of adaptive mechanisms.

Yes. Both alleles already existed in moths. So? No one was claiming otherwise.

Variation within a species to accomodate environmental changes does not "create" anything new, it only manipulates and manages existing information relative to such.

Really? You sure about that? How much do you know about dog breeding?

Do you honestly believe that the alleles for every trait seen in modern breeds was somehow lurking in the first mangy mutts domesticated?

If so, then your background in genetics is horrid indeed.

Or you know nothing of dogs.

Information theory is a relativly new discipline of mathematics which analyzes the definition, nature, and function of information or data.

It's 50 years old. It was founded at Bell Labs by Shannon.

It's not "relatively new".

This theory defines information in contrast to mere repetitive/ periodic order, as any quantity of data that manifests specified aperiodic complexity (i.e., systematic organization) towards a functional end or purpose.

Really? By which measure?

This material is from a paper my hubby is working on, it has not been published.

I can see why.

npetreley · Jun 21, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

You can't observe a mutation that [YOU IMAGINE] took place 1 billion years ago.

Game, set, and match.

RufusAtticus · Jun 21, 2002

Lanakila, you still are not defining biological terminology properly. Instead of trying to define information into these concepts, how about you just use them as biologists do and show how your concept of information is relevant. If you insist on shoe-horning information into these definitions, then you will be arguing against concepts not actually found in biology.

Originally posted by Lanakila:
Natural selection can only discriminate functional process and survivability within pre-existing information. Before you guys start yelling about information again. Let me explain it a little more clearly. Within all biological systems there exists a chemical code (DNA) of structural information (i.e., a physical representation of a conceptua schema) that contains all data regarding the design of the host entity. Natural selection has no ability to develop anything novel that does not previously exist in the DNA matrix. Natual selection manipulates the data, but does not create such data.

DNA encodes information responsible for regulation and manufacturing of RNA polymers and proteins. There is no conceptual schema involved in protein synthesis. Transcription and translation are preformed by biochemical pathways that have no relation to mental processes.

Genetic mutation proposes that random mutations (i.e., genetic "mistakes" with the DNA) actually produce the benefical material from which natural selection selects and preserves.

Genetic mutation is a phenomenon, not an explanation, so it cant propose anything. It's the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory that says that genetic mutations are responsible for producing the variation which underlies evolution.

However, in the same context as natural selection, mutations are genetic mistakes within the pre-existing data of the DNA sequence, and have no ability to "create" any new information but merely manipulates and actually produces a loss of genetic material.

Is a change in information not new information? Remember evolution acts on populations, not individuals. Every individual contains genetic information that is redundant, i.e. there are other individuals with that information too. When mutations occur that change the information an individual carries into something that no other individual has, that information is no longer redundant and the information content of the population is increased.

Take this example: Jeff knows something about Gina: Gina is neat. Thus he has information about Gina. Before he leaves town, Jeff replicates this information by telling it to two people, Nick and Randy. Because neither of them pays attention, they dont replicate the information exactly. Nick thinks Gina is sweat, and Randy thinks Gina is near. We can measure the about of information about Gina by the number of non-redundant attributes people ascribe to her. Here, the amount of information about Gina has doubled: from neat to sweat and near. Clearly when we remember that it is the population thats important to evolution, it is obvious how mutations can add information for selection to act upon.

Take this example retrieved from Pubmed, where I have bolded and colored the differences in protein sequence. The letters refer to amino acids, the meaning of which can be found here.

Code:

[b]Human Beta-hemoglobin (HBB)[/b]
  1 mvhltp[color=red][b]e[/b][/color]eks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

[b]HBB-S[/b]
  1 mvhltp[color=red][b]v[/b][/color]eks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

[b]HBB-C[/b]
  1 mvhltp[color=red][b]k[/b][/color]eks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

Each allele does not encode the same information since each one produces a distinctly different product. A single point mutation has enough effect on the information contained in the genome that it can determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. These mutations have clearly added new information to the population. Selection then acts on this new information, changing the make up of the population. Thus, evolution happens.

Natural selection is actually hereditary variation around a genetic median.

Not even close. Do you even bother to pay attention to my posts? Here again is Futuymas description of natural selection:

natural selection:
The differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics; the difference in survival and/or reproduction is not due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering the proportions of the difference entities, to constitute natural selection. Thus natural selection is also definable as a partly or wholly deterministic difference in the contribution of difference classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually the differences are inherited. The entities many be alleles, genotypes or subsets of genotypes, populations, or in the broadest sense, species.

Do you see anything in there similar to variation around a genetic median?

Originally posted by Lanakila:
That is a mutation via a DNA duplication error, will not and cannot eventually code for a new gene within a unique function and/or regulatory apparatus.

Lanakila, why do you make such absolute statements when you are new to learning about genetics? Gene families, like the globins, are enough to disprove your statement.

For instance, the classic example of peppered moths, or more recently antibiotic resistence in bacteria, merely reflect programmed instrumentation of adaptive mechanisms.

Adaptation is evolution. I have no clue what programmed instrumentation is supposed to refer to in this context. It appears to only be in there to make the statement sound authoritive, which its not. Furthermore, it is easy to show in the lab (our undergrads do it) how novel mutations (new information) confer antibiotic resistance.

Variation within a species to accomodate environmental changes does not "create" anything new, it only manipulates and manages existing information relative to such.

Try telling that to nylon-eating bacteria.

This material is from a paper my hubby is working on, it has not been published. He got alot of this information from the book by Gitt.

Maybe your husband should start actually using scientific sources; that might avoid some of the glaring problems that this argument currently has.

npetreley · Jun 21, 2002

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Try telling that to nylon-eating bacteria.

Oh yeah, I love his proof that this is new information. It's very Jerryesque -- you prove something in evolution not by demonstrating it with facts, but by using something out of your imagination.

Certainly, MOST frame shifts will destroy information. BUT NOT ALL - and that is where creationists have it wrong. I have shown three examples where such "Frame Shifts" indeed create new information. After all, in the proper context, the words "spy," "USE," and "dab" actually mean something. Since their meanings are totally unrelated to the original meanings, it is obvious that, at least in this case, the Frame Shift mutation process has created new information.

Well, I guess that clinches it. If you can create new three letter words by shifting ASCII binary, then that proves genetic mutations can create new information. How could I have been so blind?

If this gene was always there, whether in a plasmid or not, we can reasonably wonder why a bacteria would have a gene for hydrolysing an artificial polymer that did not exist until just a few decades ago;

This is a backwards argument. The issue isn't when nylon was invented but when the bacteria had the gene. Just because it CAN be used to eat nylon doesn't mean that is its only possible purpose, which is what this logic implies.

and why, in the absence of such a substrate, was the gene not mutated to uselessness over the millenia?

Um...because it had another purpose? Better still, because that's not how evolution works?

Jerry Smith · Jun 21, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

Game, set, and match.

What game were you playing??

RufusAtticus · Jun 21, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

Oh yeah, I love his proof that this is new information. It's very Jerryesque -- you prove something in evolution not by demonstrating it with facts, but by using something out of your imagination.

So the sequences of nylon-degrading enzymes have just been imagined. You have a very unique defination of imagination.

Well, I guess that clinches it. If you can create new three letter words by shifting ASCII binary, then that proves genetic mutations can create new information. How could I have been so blind?

I don't know why you've been so blind, maybe you were to busy looking at ASCII strings and not the actuall genetics the paper is refering to.

The issue isn't when nylon was invented but when the bacteria had the gene. Just because it CAN be used to eat nylon doesn't mean that is its only possible purpose, which is what this logic implies.

If it has some other function other than metabolizing nylon, we should find the genes when nylon isn't arround or has never been around. Yet we don't. We only find bacteria with these genes in areas with nylon oligomers, which is stong evidence that these genes can not have been found in nature prior to the nylon-age.

npetreley · Jun 21, 2002

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

If it has some other function other than metabolizing nylon, we should find the genes when nylon isn't arround or has never been around. Yet we don't. We only find bacteria with these genes in areas with nylon oligomers, which is stong evidence that these genes can not have been found in nature prior to the nylon-age.

You have the most fascinating idea of what constitutes "reasoning." 60 years ago, because we could see into the future that we would someday invent nylon and would need an argument for mutations creating new information, we started our search for these genes even before nylon was invented (indeed, before we had the ability to find them).

Or if that's not what you're saying, then you must have concluded that, because we didn't have the ability to look for them, and because we didn't find them, we can reasonably conclude they did not exist.

Here - I'm covering my eyes. I'll bet you can't see me.

Morat · Jun 21, 2002

Lord you're dense. I mean, are you willfully this dense?

You're giving your side a bad name. I've met some true fools on both sides of the fence, but you take the cake. I mean, generally they're that way because they truly no nothing about the subject, other than "evilution bad" or "Christianity bad" or some such. Ignorance is understandable.

You don't have an excuse. You've got people willing to explain things to you. Yet you still cling to the lamest excuses and what can only be deliberate misinterpretation of people's words.

Argument by deliberate stupidity is a new one to me.

Rufus stated quite clearly that you only need to examine bacteria in places where no nylon or nylon oligomers. Giant chunks of the Earth are like that.

Nylon's not draped on every tree, you know. You only find the genes that allow nylon digestion in bacteria in places where nylon and nylon oligomers were available.

You don't find them hovering around the genes of bacteria anywhere else.

Even better, DNA sequencing clearly shows the difference between the nylon-digesting bacteria and the "normal" version of that strain. A single frame-shift mutation is the only difference.

How dense can you be? Do you not want to actually discuss it?

Because I see people trying to have real discussions with you, and you refuse to particpate. Which is fine. No one is going to make you talk about something you don't want to.

But if that's true, why are you here? This is a place for conversation and debate, not a place for you to showcase your stubborn refusal to actually make a contribution.

D. Scarlatti · Jun 21, 2002

Originally posted by Lanakila
This material is from a paper my hubby is working on, it has not been published. He got alot of this information from the book by Gitt.

So who is Werner Gitt?

PubMed search: "GITT W"
Hits: ZERO

BIOSIS search: "GITT W"
Hits: ZERO

Uh oh.

ISI Search: "GITT W"
Hits: FOUR

COMPUTERS AS INDISPENSABLE TOOLS FOR METROLOGICAL RESEARCH AT THE PTB
PTB-MITTEILUNGEN
DEC 1994

INFORMATION - THE 3RD FUNDAMENTAL QUANTITY
SIEMENS REVIEW
NOV-DEC 1989

THE NEW HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTER-SYSTEM OF THE PTB
PTB-MITTEILUNGEN
DEC 1988

Explored? - The words does not address the problem - Correspondence
NACHRICHTEN AUS DER CHEMIE
APR 2002

Three articles from corporate magazines and one letter to the editor. Impressive!

So who is Werner Gitt?

Active creationist, prominent information scientist, writer, and close friend of AiG, Dr Gitt is also a renowned evangelist. In October 1999, he led a series of meetings in Bielefeld, Germany. His topics included After death what then? The wonder of the Bible, and What creation teaches us. Fifty-one people made first-time professions of faith in Christ.

In September and October 2000, Dr Gitt and Ken Ham had a number of successful meetings ...

Suprise suprise!

npetreley · Jun 21, 2002

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti

So who is Werner Gitt?

PubMed search: "GITT W"
Hits: ZERO

BIOSIS search: "GITT W"
Hits: ZERO

Uh oh.

ISI Search: "GITT W"
Hits: FOUR

Well, everything you say must be reliable because I get TONS of hits for D. Scarlatti. The only problem is that you used to compose music and you're dead.

no evidence for evolution

Untitled One

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Untitled One

Well-Known Member

Untitled One

Not responsible for the changes here.

Fish out of water

Not responsible for the changes here.

Fish out of water

Untitled One

pumpkin sailor

PopGen Grad Student

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

PopGen Grad Student

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

Well-Known Member

pumpkin sailor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency