Observed Speciation

[theywhosowintears]

you have been grossly misinformed!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



what do you mean by "additional genetic material", specifically?

I might need a simpler piece to read (although I enjoy reading it is a pretty hefty article) and perhaps photographs? I have quite a visual mind.

Otherwise it becomes like a politicians answers... so many words that you forget what you asked originally.

additional genetic data as in... the difference in genetic information contained in the whole earth's bio mass today and the somewhat more limited amount of information contained in the very first 'living' organism as per an evolutionary model.

information as in that which pertains to genes/dna/genetics etc that make a bird a bird and a dog a dog and mean that a dog is not a bird and a bird is not a dog. -erm that was supposed to be simple...

Peace!

PS: Thanks again

 

[caravelair]

I might need a simpler piece to read (although I enjoy reading it is a pretty hefty article) and perhaps photographs? I have quite a visual mind.

Otherwise it becomes like a politicians answers... so many words that you forget what you asked originally.

i understand. i think you will find the articles on this page to be an easier read:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossils.html

there's some pictures too! though, this is a less thorough treatment of the subject than the previous link.

additional genetic data as in... the difference in genetic information contained in the whole earth's bio mass today and the somewhat more limited amount of information contained in the very first 'living' organism as per an evolutionary model.

so basically if mutations can increase genetic information, then there's no problem, right? what type of change do you think would constitute an increase in genetic information? more genes? more alleles in the gene pool? new, novel genes? something like that?

 

[Kripost]

additional genetic data as in... the difference in genetic information contained in the whole earth's bio mass today and the somewhat more limited amount of information contained in the very first 'living' organism as per an evolutionary model.

information as in that which pertains to genes/dna/genetics etc that make a bird a bird and a dog a dog and mean that a dog is not a bird and a bird is not a dog. -erm that was supposed to be simple...

The problematic part is in the measurement of 'information' in the context of genetics. For example, in the example above, we need to define what consists a unit of information in order for measurements to be consistent and meaningful.

 

[theywhosowintears]

i understand. i think you will find the articles on this page to be an easier read:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossils.html

there's some pictures too! though, this is a less thorough treatment of the subject than the previous link.



so basically if mutations can increase genetic information, then there's no problem, right? what type of change do you think would constitute an increase in genetic information? more genes? more alleles in the gene pool? new, novel genes? something like that?

What I am really asking you is where did that which caused a simple organism to become a complex organism come from? In order to answer you should tell me what makes up a simple early organism and what makes up a complex mammal such as yourself and then describe how a transition occurred where simple became complex.- I would need a full explination of this to sufficiently understand the evolutionary view.


PS:

Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. However, seldom, if ever is the fact presented that for evolution to occur it is necessary for new genetic information to be added to a creature. To date, no example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection has been observed.-attributed to Ken Ham

 

[caravelair]

What I am really asking you is where did that which caused a simple organism to become a complex organism come from? In order to answer you should tell me what makes up a simple early organism and what makes up a complex mammal such as yourself and then describe how a transition occurred where simple became complex.- I would need a full explination of this to sufficiently understand the evolutionary view.

well that type of thing would take billions of years, and i thought we were talking about what we had observed in nature, which is obviously of a lesser timescale. the problem with your question is that "simple" and "complex" are subjective. i wouldn't know where to draw a line between them. but if you're asking how a single celled organism could become more complex, it would start by taking on a multicellular form (we have observed this type of evolution in the lab). after that, you could get cellular specialization, so not all the cells are the same type. they perform different functions. after that there's lots of possible changes that could be made. it would depend what type of organism you want to know about. evolution changes things by making variations of pre-existing structures. lots of changes like this can add up to more complexity over time. and adding complexity allows for more complex structures with a wider variety and greater efficiency of functions.

 

[theywhosowintears]

well that type of thing would take billions of years, and i thought we were talking about what we had observed in nature, which is obviously of a lesser timescale. the problem with your question is that "simple" and "complex" are subjective. i wouldn't know where to draw a line between them. but if you're asking how a single celled organism could become more complex, it would start by taking on a multicellular form (we have observed this type of evolution in the lab). after that, you could get cellular specialization, so not all the cells are the same type. they perform different functions. after that there's lots of possible changes that could be made. it would depend what type of organism you want to know about. evolution changes things by making variations of pre-existing structures. lots of changes like this can add up to more complexity over time. and adding complexity allows for more complex structures with a wider variety and greater efficiency of functions.

in the lab as in 'artificial selection'? rather then natural selection... see my new PS above.

I am just trying to understand the POV of evolution... I have read a bit of creation science and it appears to be of equal quality and reliability as evolution.

Peace.

Will come back when I find a good question to ask.

 

[notto]

PS:

Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. However, seldom, if ever is the fact presented that for evolution to occur it is necessary for new genetic information to be added to a creature. To date, no example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection has been observed.-attributed to Ken Ham

Ken Ham needs to search pubmed.

There are two lies in this statement
1) That this issues hasn't been addressed and isn't addressed by researchers. What do you think all of the research they do is addressing?

2) That haven't observed new 'information' being added from a naturallyy occurring mutation. There is no such thing as an 'artificial' mutation, even if it is observed in the lab, the mutation is still 'natural'.

 

[Split Rock]

There is no such thing as an 'artificial' mutation, even if it is observed in the lab, the mutation is still 'natural'.

Well, I would say that a mutation produced in a lab through the use of a directed or undirected mutagenesis experiment would qualify as "artificial," though I am unsure of why Ham is making a point of differentiating it from "natural" mutation.

 

[gluadys]

Well, I would say that a mutation produced in a lab through the use of a directed or undirected mutagenesis experiment would qualify as "artificial," though I am unsure of why Ham is making a point of differentiating it from "natural" mutation.

But, unless they are using genetic engineering techniques, researchers don't produce the mutations which are observed in a lab. The lab is merely a more convenient environment in which to observe the mutations which are produced naturally.

Even when they are using genetic engineering (as when a gene or part of a gene is removed or added) the effect is still the same as it would be if nature had done the same thing.

So the artificial/natural distinction is at least blurry, if not non-existent. After all the purpose of this sort of experiment is to find out more about natural processes. It doesn't suit the agenda of the researcher to get an artificial result.

 

[michabo]

Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time.

That isn't true, not really. If you look at Aron-Ra's thread about cladistics, you'll see that evolution results in some changes, but the fundamental characteristics remain fixed. That is why mammals remain mammals.

To date, no example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection has been observed.

Again, that's not really true, but he can get away with it because he picks such a definition of information that is either untestable, or so at odds with the conventional definition that the sentence is meaningless.

I know you aren't Ken Ham, so if you really believe this, can you tell us how you would verify this statement? That is, what does 'information' mean in this context, and how can we tell if any information has been added?

 

[caravelair]

in the lab as in 'artificial selection'? rather then natural selection...

nope. natural selection. here's the abstract:

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (flagellate). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/171545

see my new PS above.

sorry, what am i supposed to be looking at?

I am just trying to understand the POV of evolution... I have read a bit of creation science and it appears to be of equal quality and reliability as evolution.

appearances can be deceiving! i assure you that from a scientific point of view, creationist materials are not of equal quality or reliability, which is why the vast majority of the scientific community rejects creationism as unscientific.

Will come back when I find a good question to ask.

sounds good! see you then.

 

[AlexKolchesky]

I'm so glad I found this thread.

I've been working hard in my search for God, I want to believe but I'm running into many difficulties. I pretty much all but gave up once I heard of Creationism. I couldn't accept it at all as valid and as such I thought I had to reject the idea of God too.

I made a huge mistake in equating Creationists with all Christians.

Thank you so much for making this thread.

 

[Gazelle]

I'm so glad I found this thread.

I've been working hard in my search for God, I want to believe but I'm running into many difficulties. I pretty much all but gave up once I heard of Creationism. I couldn't accept it at all as valid and as such I thought I had to reject the idea of God too.

I made a huge mistake in equating Creationists with all Christians.

Thank you so much for making this thread.

Welcome to the forum

 

[vajradhara]

bump for rationality and lucidity

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

bump for cross forum reference

 

[vajradhara]

bumped for epic justice!

i miss Lucaspa.

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

a last bump...