Pasteur and spontaneous generation

[gluadys]

heres a link...http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

I have just read through the link and what it proves above all is that the author does not understand biological evolution. He makes a number of elementary mistakes.

Some examples:

He says "The only time that we are referring to totally random everything, totally purposeless everything is in biological Darwinian evolution."

This statement is incorrect on two counts. First Darwinian evolution is not totally random. Only mutation is random. Natural selection is not. Natural selection takes the randomness out of evolution because it selects which mutations will endure and become fixed in the population.

Secondly, to characterize Darwinian evolution as "totally purposeless" is to introduce a metaphysical evaluation into a scientific discussion. Richard Dawkins may believe that evolution is totally purposeless, but he is an atheist. As a scientist he has no evidence that evolution is purposeless. As a theist, I am free to believe that evolution does have a purpose. Even that one of the purposes of evolution was to produce a species with which God could enter into a personal relationship. Nothing in biology can show that I am wrong. This is a matter of metaphysical preference, not scientific evidence.


Then there is his random mutation of an advertisement. Problem here is that he assumes the accumulation of many harmful mutations. He gives an example of one mutation, then of five then of ten. What he neglects is natural selection, which will operate to prevent the accumulation of harmful mutations.

He sneers at Dawkins "Methinks it is a weasel" illustration, because "Every time [the program] finds a wrong letter it throws it away. Every time it finds the right letter it keeps it." This he says, "is Scrabble, not Darwinian evolution." But if he understood Darwinian evolution he would understand it is more like Scrabble than the totally random process he portrays. That is the role of natural selection--to throw out what does not work and keep what does.

There are many other examples of misunderstanding evolution in the essay. One thing that seems to come through clearly is that he does not distinguish the individual from the species. It is an important distinction because mutations happen in individuals, but natural selection occurs at the level of the species.

When he speaks of mutations happening in the giraffe, he speaks as though a single mutation happens in all giraffes at the same time. And he again assumes that harmful mutations will accumulate so that even if improvement happens to the neck, other parts of the body will be destroyed by harmful mutations. But mutations happen to different individual giraffes, and if they are harmful enough, those particular individuals do not get the opportunity to reproduce, so the mutations die with those individuals. So only fit individuals pass their genes (including improvements) to the next generation.

Another item he seems to ignore is the redundancy in DNA. He mentions the redundancy in English and other human languages, but he neglects the fact that there is also a large amount of redundancy in the DNA code. Most amino acids have at least two codings, and some as many as six. Many mutations merely change from one coding to another for the same amino acid. This does no more harm than substituting a British for an American spelling of an English word (e.g. "colour" for "color")

And, of course, he does not define information in a biological sense or describe how to measure it. Deamiter's questions on how Shannon noise applies to DNA and evolution is very a propos. Can you, or anyone, show that a change in DNA information is necessarily harmful to either the individual in which the mutation occurs, or to its species?

 

[Deamiter]

withreason -- if you have a limited amount of time (or mental energy) I'd suggest you focus on grimbly's post # 80 rather than mine or gluadys.

I think we all have good points, but gluadys focuses on critiquing the website, and I am trying to get across a point that grimbly made much clearer (in my opinion). I think all our posts are worth reading, but to continue on the same line of discussion we've been having, grimbly's in #80 would be most worth your time.

 

[grimbly]

Continuing in this vein from my post # 80

I remember some work that was being done exploring the hypothesis that our 3 Base Pair codon arrangement had evolved from a 2 BP precursor. So I googled "evolution of 3 base pair codon" and found a lot of sites referencing work that has been done in this area. I also tripped across what looks like a fairly detailed book online about Molecular Cell Biology here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mcb.section.863

You might want to wade through that tome and see what they say. I don't have time right now since I'm busy with some class notes I found on Radiogenic Isotope Geochemistry.

 

[withreason]

Can you, or anyone, show that a change in DNA information is necessarily harmful to either the individual in which the mutation occurs, or to its species?

Thank you for the time and posting, certainly gave me some chewable material, not to mention my lack of education in this subject matter, but it still remains of great interest to me.
gluadys...an example, the many different varieties of Dogs that have been bread throughout the years..it is evident that each breed has developed a particular biological problem, related to the DNA sequencing, Rottwielers are prone to develope Hip dysplasia, Irish setters are prone to suffer from epileptic seizures, and the list does go on for specific abnormalities associated to specific breeds. doesnt that point to a degeneration, or loss of information through mutation?

 

[random_guy]

Thank you for the time and posting, certainly gave me some chewable material, not to mention my lack of education in this subject matter, but it still remains of great interest to me.
gluadys...an example, the many different varieties of Dogs that have been bread throughout the years..it is evident that each breed has developed a particular biological problem, related to the DNA sequencing, Rottwielers are prone to develope Hip dysplasia, Irish setters are prone to suffer from epileptic seizures, and the list does go on for specific abnormalities associated to specific breeds. doesnt that point to a degeneration, or loss of information through mutation?

Not really. I bolded the important part. Many Creationist websites will say loss or gain of information, but never define it. In order for there to be a loss or a gain, there must be a metric function (some way to say is this more or less than something else). For example, the different between 5 and 8 is +3, or a gain of 3.

Now, how do you measure information of a breed? Using your example, does a Rottwieler or Irish Settler have more information? Does rice or corn have more information? These are very important, yet basic, question that needs to be answerable if you plan to argue about information.

Does a human that is a carrier for sickle cell anemia have more or less information than one that doesn't? Those that are carriers have symptoms of sickle cell anemia but not the full blown disease. Do they have less information? What if both people live in Africa? The one without the disease will die from malaria. Does this change of location someone cause the information content to drop?

These questions are unanswerable by Creationists. This is why the information attack on evolution fails because it's not rigorous enough. If you have any questions about this, please let me know and I'll clarify.

 

[grimbly]

Thank you for the time and posting, certainly gave me some chewable material, not to mention my lack of education in this subject matter, but it still remains of great interest to me.
gluadys...an example, the many different varieties of Dogs that have been bread throughout the years..it is evident that each breed has developed a particular biological problem, related to the DNA sequencing, Rottwielers are prone to develope Hip dysplasia, Irish setters are prone to suffer from epileptic seizures, and the list does go on for specific abnormalities associated to specific breeds. doesnt that point to a degeneration, or loss of information through mutation?

Great question!!

Yep, that is a problem of our own making. In order to get or develop a new breed, a lot of inbreeding took place to accentuate those traits that we found desirable. The genome of that population (new breed) was actually stripped of some of the variation that naturally developed during the course of the dog's evolution. That decreased variation as well as unnatural selection has had a really bad effect on certain dog subspecies. For durability, the best dog you can get is a mutt, the product of many a back alley romance.

As an example of unintended consequences that can occur when you mess around with the genome and don't really know what you are doing (and we don't), may I introduce you to the tame Russian Silver Fox.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

enjoy the read...It's a cute story

 

[withreason]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]


[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]​

[/FONT]
Now the problem right there with that assertion is that it is just plain wrong. There is nothing symbolic about DNA, it is just a copolymer and follows the rules of chemistry just like any other polymer. Now the resulting proteins that are ultimately synthesized in the ribosomes in response to the mRNA that was copied from the appropriate DNA strand are not the translation of some arbitrary symbolic code but rather a series of cascading chemical reactions. There is nothing symbolic going on. There is no intelligence interpreting some symbols that have been agreed on between sender and receiver like we see in language. Rather what you have is a group of chemical reactions triggering more chemical reactions and more and more.....

No question it is complex, even frighteningly complex but when you examine it closely, there is no magic. Now we, when we describe DNA, sometimes use a language paradigm and may even refer to it as a code, but that is our way of relating to something using an analogy It is a limitation of our way of relating to complex things but that still does not detract from the fact that what goes on in the cell is just plain old chemistry. Nothing symbolic, no preordained conventions, just plain old chemistry

To all biologists, If I've bungled things too badly, sorry my biochem is 40 years old and I'm too cheap to go but a new biochem book (They don't come cheap)

Thank you grimbly; and for the link. and I do understand that chemical reaction is taking place,and not a re-positioning of codon by a programmer with all the correct syntax for language communication. yet, the point that I Get,... "cascading chemical reactions" are not random. and there is nothing random taking place in the assimilation of codon. where does a mutation begin..? there is no room for error, the string is assembled correctly the first time? while needing a complete rearrangement for even the slightest of physiological change...yet..at the same time..natural selection requires millions of years for the slightest mutation to develop! I do not see it !! where is the information generated to produce those "cascading chemical reactions" ?? where is the mutation information?
</IMG>

 

[withreason]

Great question!!

Yep, that is a problem of our own making. In order to get or develop a new breed, a lot of inbreeding took place to accentuate those traits that we found desirable. The genome of that population (new breed) was actually stripped of some of the variation that naturally developed during the course of the dog's evolution. That decreased variation as well as unnatural selection has had a really bad effect on certain dog subspecies. For durability, the best dog you can get is a mutt, the product of many a back alley romance.

As an example of unintended consequences that can occur when you mess around with the genome and don't really know what you are doing (and we don't), may I introduce you to the tame Russian Silver Fox.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

enjoy the read...It's a cute story

that does make sense ...thnx will read the link
</IMG></IMG>

 

[Brennan]

an example, the many different varieties of Dogs that have been bread throughout the years..it is evident that each breed has developed a particular biological problem, related to the DNA sequencing, Rottwielers are prone to develope Hip dysplasia, Irish setters are prone to suffer from epileptic seizures, and the list does go on for specific abnormalities associated to specific breeds. doesnt that point to a degeneration, or loss of information through mutation?

What it shows is that breeding artificially accelerates the process of evolution, so that disadvantageous traits are not being 'ironed out' properly, so to speak. Note that human back pain is a result of humans not being properly 'designed' to walk upright.

As to the 'information' angle. Well, that's just obvious hogwash. The amount of information contained in the DNA of every breed of dog is probably virtually identical. The creationist argument is that if GACTACTT is changed to GAATCCTT that information is lost. In actuality there is exactly the same amount of information, it is just different information. Put it this way, if you over-write all the information on you hard-drive with a different load of 1's and 0's is there any less information? Nope, you just happen to have Medieval-Total war installed instead of Halo 3. By the creationist argument it's impossible to put a new game on your PC. Obvious nonsense.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you for the time and posting, certainly gave me some chewable material, not to mention my lack of education in this subject matter, but it still remains of great interest to me.
gluadys...an example, the many different varieties of Dogs that have been bread throughout the years..it is evident that each breed has developed a particular biological problem, related to the DNA sequencing, Rottwielers are prone to develope Hip dysplasia, Irish setters are prone to suffer from epileptic seizures, and the list does go on for specific abnormalities associated to specific breeds. doesnt that point to a degeneration, or loss of information through mutation?

You have already had two good answers. Here are a few more points to ponder.

Selection, whether natural or artificial, reduces variability in the breed. But that doesn't necessarily equate to less information. You would have to do a comparative genetic analysis to determine whether or not there was less information. (And, of course, you would have to have some definition of information, and a way of measuring the amount of information to do this.)

Again, you also need to decide whether you are measuring the genetic information in the individual, or in the species. Obviously domestic dogs as a species have a lot of variability, yet that doesn't mean that one dog has more or less genetic information than another. What it means is that different dogs have different formulations of the same genes. (These different formulations are called "alleles".) Now a specific breed will not have all the alleles found in the species as a whole, but it will have just as many genes.

 

[withreason]

As to the 'information' angle. Well, that's just obvious hogwash. The amount of information contained in the DNA of every breed of dog is probably virtually identical. The creationist argument is that if GACTACTT is changed to GAATCCTT that information is lost. In actuality there is exactly the same amount of information, it is just different information. Put it this way, if you over-write all the information on you hard-drive with a different load of 1's and 0's is there any less information? Nope, you just happen to have Medieval-Total war installed instead of Halo 3. By the creationist argument it's impossible to put a new game on your PC. Obvious nonsense.

that is arguable...the chemical sequencing that GACTACTT provides to RNA, is changed to GAATCCTT, so..in actuality...GACTACTT is lost to RNA imprinting.

 

[gluadys]

that is arguable...the chemical sequencing that GACTACTT provides to RNA, is changed to GAATCCTT, so..in actuality...GACTACTT is lost to RNA imprinting.

And GAATCCTT is added. So do we end up with more information, less information or the equivalent amount of information?

 

[withreason]

You have already had two good answers. Here are a few more points to ponder.

Selection, whether natural or artificial, reduces variability in the breed. But that doesn't necessarily equate to less information. You would have to do a comparative genetic analysis to determine whether or not there was less information. (And, of course, you would have to have some definition of information, and a way of measuring the amount of information to do this.)

Again, you also need to decide whether you are measuring the genetic information in the individual, or in the species. Obviously domestic dogs as a species have a lot of variability, yet that doesn't mean that one dog has more or less genetic information than another. What it means is that different dogs have different formulations of the same genes. (These different formulations are called "alleles".) Now a specific breed will not have all the alleles found in the species as a whole, but it will have just as many genes.

My post was in responce to you asking for an example do to a change of information..not lost

 

[withreason]

And GAATCCTT is added. So do we end up with more information, less information or the equivalent amount of information?

there is no loss of codons, but the information is changed, and the production of GAATCCTT may result in a loss of protein assimilation, where as GACTACTT. would not! so....where is the definition of "loss of information"

 

[gluadys]

My post was in responce to you asking for an example do to a change of information..not lost

It was both. From post 84, your question was:

doesnt that point to a degeneration, or loss of information through mutation?

 

[Brennan]

there is no loss of codons, but the information is changed, and the production of GAATCCTT may result in a loss of protein assimilation, where as GACTACTT. would not! so....where is the definition of "loss of information"

definition of 'loss of information' : less information after the change. I'll give you a massive clue: there's 8 bits of information in GACTACTT and 8 bits of information in GAATCCTT.

 

[withreason]

definition of 'loss of information' : less information after the change. I'll give you a massive clue: there's 8 bits of information in GACTACTT and 8 bits of information in GAATCCTT.

did you have to work very hard at that??
that was impressive

 

[withreason]

It was both. From post 84, your question was:

your right..you seemed to take a different direction, it was me not understanding ....cant imagine that can you

 

[Brennan]

did you have to work very hard at that??
that was impressive

No, if you're not a creationist it's a piece of cake. Would you like to drop the ad-homs and answer the question? Is there more, less or the same amount of information?

 

[gluadys]

there is no loss of codons, but the information is changed, and the production of GAATCCTT may result in a loss of protein assimilation, where as GACTACTT. would not! so....where is the definition of "loss of information"

It may...and it may not. It may actually benefit the individual, and eventually the species.


As already stated, selection does reduce variability (the variety of alleles of certain genes). And no one questions that in some cases, this can be problematical. In fact, that is Deamiter's point. A healthy species is one with a lot of potential variability.

But is loss of variability the same thing as loss of information? There can be no definition of "loss of information" until there is a definition of "information". So far, those who use the information argument have not defined either "information" nor shown how to measure a loss of information.

Furthermore, "fitness" is still another matter. For example, unlike most mammals, humans and other great apes have an altered GLO gene which destroys the capacity of the gene to synthesize Vitamin C. Note that the gene still exists. In that sense, no information has been lost. But, as you suggested for the example above, the gene no longer functions as it does in most mammals.

Yet because Vitamin C is readily available in their diet, humans and other great apes do not generally suffer from a deficiency of Vitamin C, so their fitness is not impaired by the non-functioning of this gene. Scurvy and other consequences of too little Vitamin C only show up when the diet is inadequate to supply it.

Does this mean that people with scurvy have less genetic information than people without it? Of course not.

Finally, I should add that although selection reduces variability, mutation increases variability. So if variability is the measure of information, it can go both ways.