What about the DNA evidence?

[AV1611VET]

This paper, which is a review of natural selection in plants, has a nice Fig. 1 showing estimates for several diverse species of the fraction of the genome that is functional, and the fraction of that that's coding.

I haven't the slightest idea what you just said.

 

[USincognito]

An hour and a half? How about you give a recap?

Is it one of the information based arguments?
Probability based?

EDIT: skipped around a bit and saw him drop the information idea. The trouble is, there is no definition of "information" that is both relevant to evolution AND incapable of being created by known natural mechanisms. Here's my standard hypothetical to illustrate that point:

I didn't need to watch a second of it to know it was an amorphous Disco Toot "information" talk. The still of Stephen Meyer in the preview was enough.

With all the terabytes of server space these guys consume, you figure one of them could come up with a quantifiable metric by which to measure genetic "information" and determine if a "gain" or "loss" has occurred.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This paper, which is a review of natural selection in plants, has a nice Fig. 1 showing estimates for several diverse species of the fraction of the genome that is functional, and the fraction of that that's coding.

Yet evolutionists miss the key points.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"In contrast, and more in line with expectations of neutral theory, such high rates of species-wide positive selection from new mutations have not been detected in the human genome (Eyre-Walker & Keightley 2009, Hernandez et al. 2011), which also appears to contain a larger proportion of DNA subject to little or no selective constraint (Eory et al. 2009, Eyre-Walker & Keightley 2009, Lindblad-Toh et al. 2011)."

So now we are comparing plants to humans because evolutionists couldn't get the human and animal tests to show any selection at all, disproving thier natural selection theory.


"This highlights the significant variation that exists across plant species in the patterns and strength of selection."

It is not mutations that cause variation that is the topic of natural selection, but mutations that must create new alleles and genes, from ones that did not exist before in any species. In the end every plant or animal that has signs of positive, neutral, or even harmful mutations is merely a variation of the same plant or animal species. Nothing new is ever created. Genes are merely made recessive, dominant, or gained from a mate where it already existed. Never is a new gene or alleles gained from mutation that did not exist prior to the mutation. The mutation simply makes it recessive or dominate, or neutral.

This is shown in every single genetic study ever done. Never has a new alleles or gene not already existing ever been shown to have been created. Therefore it is impossible by experimental data to infer that one species can change over time into another species. One can however infer that species merely vary within the limits of their genetic code. Cats a living example with variation in a mere few generations from mankind's interference that might have taken thousands of years in nature. But in the end they are all still cats, and all still of the same species, merely variations thereof.

 

[createdtoworship]

An hour and a half? How about you give a recap?

Is it one of the information based arguments?
Probability based?

EDIT: skipped around a bit and saw him drop the information idea. The trouble is, there is no definition of "information" that is both relevant to evolution AND incapable of being created by known natural mechanisms. Here's my standard hypothetical to illustrate that point:

Say you have a region with a bunch of hemoglobin genes. We'll say 10 of them.
1. a duplication event occurs in which an extra copy is created. We now have 11 identical hemoglobin genes
2. a substitution occurs altering the binding affinity of one copy of that hemoglobin providing altered function
3. a deletion occurs of that modified gene. returning the genome to it's original complement of 10 identical hemoglobins.

Now, if information is tied to genetic code, we must have started and stopped with the same amount of info since we started and stopped with the same code.

If information decreased at any point, it must have increased at another step. Thus, information can increase from known random mechanisms of mutation.

If the amount of information did not change at any step of the process, the definition of information being used is irrelevant to evolution.

mutations never add genetic information, I am unsure where you get this idea?

 

[[serious]]

Yet evolutionists miss the key points.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"In contrast,

Let me stop you there, "In contrast" generally means "we just talked about something that is a counter example to what we are about to say"

and more in line with expectations of neutral theory, such high rates of species-wide positive selection from new mutations have not been detected in the human genome

"such high rates" suggests they just talked about something with those high rates. Further more, the saying that high rates weren't seen doesn't mean that they didn't see lower rates

(Eyre-Walker & Keightley 2009, Hernandez et al. 2011), which also appears to contain a larger proportion of DNA subject to little or no selective constraint (Eory et al. 2009, Eyre-Walker & Keightley 2009, Lindblad-Toh et al. 2011)."

We just extensively beat the "how much of the human genome is under sequence specific selection pressure" horse to death with the multi page exchange between Loudmouth and Michael.

So now we are comparing plants to humans because evolutionists couldn't get the human and animal tests to show any selection at all, disproving thier natural selection theory.

Ahhem, "Nevertheless, analyses of protein-coding and noncoding sequences indicate... lower rates of positive selection in the human genome than in Drosophila"

Lower rates than select model organisms, not zero.

Read a bit more carefully. If you are trusting in another person's/site's synopsis of the paper, you now know not to trust them to understand what they are reading.

 

[[serious]]

mutations never add genetic information, I am unsure where you get this idea?

Then the deletion in my example didn't subtract information. If none of the processes I listed change the amount of information, then evolution can occur perfectly well independently of your definition of information.

 

[sfs]

mutations never add genetic information, I am unsure where you get this idea?

Mutation can add anything at all to DNA. If mutations can't add genetic information, then they also can't remove information. Where did you get the idea that mutations can't add information?

 

[sfs]

Yet evolutionists miss the key points.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"In contrast, and more in line with expectations of neutral theory, such high rates of species-wide positive selection from new mutations have not been detected in the human genome (Eyre-Walker & Keightley 2009, Hernandez et al. 2011), which also appears to contain a larger proportion of DNA subject to little or no selective constraint (Eory et al. 2009, Eyre-Walker & Keightley 2009, Lindblad-Toh et al. 2011)."

So you're using a paper that states that some species have even more natural selection than expected as evidence that natural selection never happens. I'm sure that will persuade lots of people.

This is shown in every single genetic study ever done. Never has a new alleles or gene not already existing ever been shown to have been created.

Since I've corrected you on this point multiple times, I have to wonder: are you not reading the posts in these threads? Are you mentally ill? Simply repeating blatant falsehoods is not exactly a productive strategy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you're using a paper that states that some species have even more natural selection than expected as evidence that natural selection never happens. I'm sure that will persuade lots of people.

No, I am using a paper that claims natural selection happens, but admits that it only creates variations, never any new species from another species. geneticists unlike evolutionists know that not once has a new alleles or gene been created that did not exist before. That genes become recessive, dominant, or nuetral, but never once has a new one been created that did not exist before. yet this is required in evolution to get from simple cells to complex life that contains genes not seen in the simple life. Yet scientists admit this has NEVER been observed. So once again you lack any proof for your theory. You simply try to misdirect what I said to what you want me to have said. Double-talk and fantasies is all you have.

Since I've corrected you on this point multiple times, I have to wonder: are you not reading the posts in these threads? Are you mentally ill? Simply repeating blatant falsehoods is not exactly a productive strategy.

once again resorting to the fallacy of Ad Hominem remarks to cover your lack of evidence.

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

Only in your own mind! You have never once shown that new alleles or genes can be created, nor that mutations do anything other than cause genes to become recessive or dominate, genes that ALREADY existed. You have never shown this because it has never been observed in any experiment. Only in the minds of theorists does this happen, in the far, far past. And might as well be in a galaxy far, far away while we are at it.

No one is arguing that beneficial genes might be selected over harmful ones. But natural selection as used in evolution requires that new genes and alleles be created where none existed before. This has never been observed, which is why scientists are careful to say variation of the species, even if they then go on to speculate how this might create new species, something never once observed as fact.

You have living examples right before your eyes you constantly ignore. House cat mates with Ocelot - showing they are ONE SPECIES. Ocelot mates with Jaguar - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and therefore house cat as well. Jaguar mates with Panther - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and house cat and Ocelot as well. Panther mates with Lion - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and house cat, Ocelot and Jaguar as well. Lion mates with Tiger - showing they are ONE SPECIES, and house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar and Panther as well. The interbreeding chain is absolute and proven to exist. They are all one species, merely variation thereof.

The same in plants. We have many varieties of rose, but they are all roses. Many varieties of wheat, but they are all wheat. Many varieties of rice, but they all are rice. Rice does not become maize, and maize does not become rice.

In the end you have only variation of the same species, even if you call the same species different species. But I would expect nothing less from an evolutionists that believes Lions and Tigers are separate species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring, the exact definition of species. You can't even be consistent within your own defined terms.

 

[Loudmouth]

mutations never add genetic information, I am unsure where you get this idea?

You need to show evidence of three things:

1. A definition of new information and a way to measure it.

2. A demonstration that no mutation can ever produce new information.

3. That evolution needs to produce new information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I am using a paper that claims natural selection happens, but admits that it only creates variations, never any new species from another species.

New species are variations. Humans and chimps are variations of the ape kind. Humans and baboons are variations of the primate kind. Humans and bears are variations of the mammal kind.

geneticists unlike evolutionists know that not once has a new alleles or gene been created that did not exist before.

Creation of a new melanin allele in pocket mice resulting in a new allele that was positively selected for:

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

You have living example right before your eyes you constantly ignore. House cat mates with Ocelot - showing they are ONE SPECIES. Ocelot mates with jaguar - showing they are ONE SPECIES,

Show us this ocelot/jaguar hybrid.

The same in plants. We have many varieties of rose, but they are all roses.

We have many varieties of apes, humans and chimps being two of them. We have many varieties of primates, humans and baboons being two of them. We have many varieties of mammals, humans and bears being two of them.

In the end you have only variation of the same species,

Humans and chimps are not the same species, and the DNA evidence demonstrates that they share a common ancestor.

Scientists have also shown that lineage specific mutations can and do result in restricted gene flow between populations. For example, horses and donkeys can no longer produce fertile offspring which makes them different species. There is no gene flow between the populations. As time goes by, the differences between the populatins will only increase which further reduces interfertility between the populations. We see speciation in progress, and we see the production of separate populations with restricted gene flow.

 

[sfs]

No, I am using a paper that claims natural selection happens, but admits that it only creates variations, never any new species from another species.

No, you're using a paper that says nothing of the sort. The entire paper requires that new species are created from old species. If you don't understand that, you have no business commenting on this paper.

geneticists unlike evolutionists know that not once has a new alleles or gene been created that did not exist before.

I'm a geneticist. What you've just said is completely wrong. Geneticists routinely see new mutations and new genes formed in the lab.

 

[createdtoworship]

You need to show evidence of three things:

1. A definition of new information and a way to measure it.

2. A demonstration that no mutation can ever produce new information.

3. That evolution needs to produce new information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor.

My statement is negative only positive statements need proof. Your is the positive one, so you shifted the burden of proof.
you must give proof that mutations can add new information (postive statement). Basically genetic code if you want a definition.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you're using a paper that says nothing of the sort. The entire paper requires that new species are created from old species. If you don't understand that, you have no business commenting on this paper.


I'm a geneticist. What you've just said is completely wrong. Geneticists routinely see new mutations and new genes formed in the lab.

I believe species can sometimes interbreed and are therefore within a kind (sometimes), I personally believe however that no animal can evolve in which he passes into another genus. There is a genus barrier. And thus macro evolution imo is only related to crossing the genus barrier. And I believe the Bible's "Kind" to be genus (approximately).

 

[sfs]

I believe species can sometimes interbreed and are therefore within a kind (sometimes), I personally believe however that no animal can evolve in which he passes into another genus. There is a genus barrier. And thus macro evolution imo is only related to crossing the genus barrier. And I believe the Bible's "Kind" to be genus (approximately).

Well, it's nice that you believe that, but your belief has nothing to do with what Justatruthseeker claimed (or with the science of genetics for that matter).

 

[Loudmouth]

My statement is negative only positive statements need proof. Your is the positive one, so you shifted the burden of proof.
you must give proof that mutations can add new information (postive statement). Basically genetic code if you want a definition.

Your positive claims:

Evolution requires new information.

Where is your proof? Show us how to measure new information using DNA sequences.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe species can sometimes interbreed and are therefore within a kind (sometimes), I personally believe however that no animal can evolve in which he passes into another genus. There is a genus barrier.

Where is your evidence for this genus barrier?

What is stopping humans from putting gorillas, chimps, and humans in the same genus?

And I believe the Bible's "Kind" to be genus (approximately).

So all we need to do is put humans and chimps in the same genus and we have proven evolution, correct? Can you tell us why we can't do that?

 

[sfs]

My statement is negative only positive statements need proof.

Wherever did you get that idea?

Your is the positive one, so you shifted the burden of proof.
you must give proof that mutations can add new information (postive statement). Basically genetic code if you want a definition.

Okay. The amount of information in a genome is two bits per base pair. A mutation that adds a single base pair to the genome adds two bits. Mutations that add single base pairs occur frequently. Therefore, mutations increase the amount of information in a genome. QED.

 

[[serious]]

My statement is negative only positive statements need proof. Your is the positive one, so you shifted the burden of proof.
you must give proof that mutations can add new information (postive statement). Basically genetic code if you want a definition.

Your statement that evolution doesn't create new info is negative, but your implied claim that evolution requires new info is a positive claim. Likewise, the requirement to define your terms (information) is not excused by the term occuring in a negative statement.

 

[Michael]

We can go back to concept of what junk DNA was by the guy who came up with the term.

The points I wish to make are: 1) Natural selection is an extremely conservative force. So long as a particular function is assigned to a single gene locus in the genome, natural selection only permits trivial mutations of that locus to accompany evolution. 2) Only a redundant copy of a gene can escape from natural selection and while being ignored by natural selection can accumulate meaningful mutation to emerge as a new gene locus with a new function. Thus, evolution has been heavily dependent upon the mechanism of gene duplication. 3) The probability of a redundant copy of an old gene emerging as a new gene, however, is quite small. The more likely fate of a base sequence which is not policed by natural selection is to become degenerate. My estimate is that for every new gene locus created about 10 redundant copies must join the ranks of functionless DNA base sequence. 4) As a consequence, the mammalian genome is loaded with functionless DNA.
Susumu Ohno
​

This is the concept we are using now for junk DNA. It is DNA that is accumulating mutations because it is not under selective pressure. Sections of this junk DNA will still bind proteins, be methylated, and will probably produce low copy number mRNA's. It is still junk, just as a functionless tv will still gather dust. Mere existence is not function, and yet ENCODE counts mere existence as function.

This feels more like displaced frustration at the choice of the term "junk" at this point. Due to family obligations, I didn't get all the way through that last paper on "junk DNA", but after thinking about it, I realize that I'm effectively blaming you personally for what I believe is a really dumb term, and a highly suspect assumption on the creators (of the term) part. I have always disliked the term 'junk dna' because it makes all sorts of assumptions about the functionality of DNA that aren't necessarily true. I also dislike the way you personally present your favorite materials (apparently supported by only 1 paper you could readily cite) as *fact* when it's only a "theory", but there's no point in making a federal case over it on this issue IMO.

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today


The ENCODE folks, as well as recent discoveries about DNA demonstrate rather conclusively IMO that there are highly subjective ways of describing a genome's function. The ENCODE group's definition puts the functional genome number at 80 percent *functional*, which even 'feels' high to me. I can't personally justify jumping on board an 80 percent figure in *either* direction, but I do realize and accept that your position is the more common position at this point in time. It's still just a *consensus* that I frankly think will change over time.

There's really not that much point however in haggling over percentages or blaming you personally for the term 'junk', nor the current consensus. I'll just let it go at this point unless you have some objection.