- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,187
- 52,654
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I haven't the slightest idea what you just said.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.
[serious];64699970 said: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:
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.
[serious];64699970 said: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.
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"
"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 ratesand 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
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.(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)."
Ahhem, "Nevertheless, analyses of protein-coding and noncoding sequences indicate... lower rates of positive selection in the human genome than in Drosophila"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.
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?mutations never add genetic information, I am unsure where you get this idea?
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)."
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.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.
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.
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.
mutations never add genetic information, I am unsure where you get this idea?
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.
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,
The same in plants. We have many varieties of rose, but they are all roses.
In the end you have only variation of the same 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.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.
I'm a geneticist. What you've just said is completely wrong. Geneticists routinely see new mutations and new genes formed in the lab.geneticists unlike evolutionists know that not once has a new alleles or gene been created that did not exist before.
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.
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.
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).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).
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.
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 I believe the Bible's "Kind" to be genus (approximately).
Wherever did you get that idea?My statement is negative only positive statements need proof.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Susumu Ohno
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?