Skeptics choke on frog
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Skeptics choke on Frog:
was Dawkins caught on the hop?
First published in:
Prayer News (both Australia and UK) p. 3, November
1998
Our new video From a Frog to a Prince
(right) is having a beneficial effect. It
illustrates the amazing design in living things,
and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA,
required as a blueprint for all the designs. It
also shows that mutations and natural selection
merely remove information, not add information, as
particles-to-people evolution requires.
One of its highlights is the stumping of the
ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you
give an example of a genetic mutation or an
evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
the information in the genome?’
If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e.
observable and testable) evidence that mutations
and natural selection can add information, Dawkins
should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was
unable to provide any experimental evidence, and
gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the
question.
Dawkins is a hero of the Australian Skeptics, who
helped bring him to Australia (showing their
anti-Christian bias contrary to their professed
religious neutrality — see How Religiously Neutral
are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?). It was
obviously too much for the Skeptics that their hero
was stumped. In their magazine The Skeptic, the
editor, Barry Williams, published a vitriolic
article accusing the video of deception, as well as
smearing creationists in general.2
These tactics should surprise no one familiar with
the Australian Skeptics. To us, allegations from
the Australian Skeptics have a big question mark
over their credibility. After all, their leading
light Ian Plimer in his book Telling Lies ...
bragged about blatantly deceiving creationists, and
that book has the full support of the rest of the
Australian Skeptics (see The Ian Plimer Files)
Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the end
(combatting creationism) justifies the means
(deception), how can anyone be sure that anything
else they write is not deception for the good of
the ‘cause’?
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
forbids bearing false witness; atheistic skeptics
like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such
inhibitions. We are not saying that all atheists
lie, but that they certainly have no absolute moral
basis for refraining from lies.
Finally, despite all the bluff and bluster by
Dawkins and Williams, they still have not answered
the question!
[snip]
To view the complete article, click on the URL
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=3907>
The video, "From a Frog to a Prince" is available from the Institute for
Creation Research <http://www.icr.org>
For residents of Canada or the U.S. who wish to receive a 10 minute video
excerpt (in VHS format) from the UNEDITED Dawkins interview, which includes
Gillian Brown asking Dawkins:
"Could you give any example of an evolutionary process or mechanism which
can be seen to create new functional information at the genetic level?"
followed by Dawkins' long pause, and eventual response,
send a postal money order for $10 (U.S. funds) to:
DAWKINS VIDEO
Box 27027
Willow Park P.O.
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1X 7L7
"Creationist Deception Exposed" by Barry Williams/ "Gillian Brown answers
Barry Williams"
<http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/ca_gb_01.htm>
---
To Barry Williams: When will the next issue of The Skeptic be published,
which I understand will include your response to Gillian Brown, as well as a
new essay on information by Richard Dawkins. Will your response and Dawkins'
essay be available for viewing at the Skeptic website?
David Buckna
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=3907
|
|
| Skeptics choke on Frog:
| was Dawkins caught on the hop?
|
| First published in:
| Prayer News (both Australia and UK) p. 3, November
| 1998
|
| Our new video From a Frog to a Prince
| (right) is having a beneficial effect. It
| illustrates the amazing design in living things,
| and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA,
| required as a blueprint for all the designs. It
| also shows that mutations and natural selection
| merely remove information, not add information, as
| particles-to-people evolution requires.
|
| One of its highlights is the stumping of the
| ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
| the simple question: Professor Dawkins, can you
| give an example of a genetic mutation or an
| evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
| the information in the genome?
I don't get it. Since when is absence of evidence evidence of
absence, let alone evidence for your favorite theory? Specifically, even
assuming that Dawkins was actually stumped, so what? Since when does the
issue stand or fall on the basis of what Dawkins does or does not say for
whatever reason?
An obvious example of this supposedly unanswerable question is the
acquiring of resistance to antibiotics, and, also, additional genetic
modifications to allow this resistance to occur in bacteria without great
disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics. Experiments have been
performed on clonal bacteria which did not have genes for resistance to
antibiotics, and then some subsequently acquired it through mutation, and
those mutants became abundant to the exclusion of non-resistant ones due
to selection. It is plain old evolution by mutation, inheritance, and
natural selection. I only wish it were not so easy to find an example
where organisms have evolved new genetic information to circumvent
techniques humans have developed to control them.
Also take a look at the August 1st issue of _New_Scientist_, p.14,
which talks about how bacteria can be coaxed into evolving the ability to
incorporate highly unusual amino acids into their biological systems. The
situation is quite artificial, but the process has definitely added new
information of some kind to the biological system.
| If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e.
| observable and testable) evidence that mutations
| and natural selection can add information, Dawkins
| should.
Yes. Which makes one wonder if he had some other reason for not
answering.
Look, I haven't seen the video, all I have seen are explanations
of it, but I don't see the point. Even if I assume your premise is
entirely valid, and that Dawkin's really was stumped (something I doubt,
but will grant for the sake of the argument), big deal. His supposed
failure is irrelevant to the scientific issue. I know of examples "of an
evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new
functional information at the genetic level", so I could care less what
Dawkins did or did not present in reply.
I think this whole situation is a case of people desperately
*wishing* that Dawkins did not have an answer, and *wishing* an answer did
not exist at all, but it does. That is all that really matters, no matter
how much spin doctoring is attempted on either side of the events.
To use an analogy, if someone had asked Dawkins for an example of
a specific transitional fossil specimen that they could go see in a museum
that represented the transition between fish and tetrapods, and he could
not think of one by name, the pregnant pause and answering the question by
refering to, say, the _Archaeopteryx_ specimen in the BMNH, would, at
most, be indicative of nothing more than a failure of memory and
knowledge. It would not change the evidence that does exist. I can't
think of where the type specimens of _Acanthostega_ are stored either, but
I could find out in about 15 minutes.
..
|
| Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
| belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
| forbids bearing false witness; atheistic skeptics
| like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such
| inhibitions. We are not saying that all atheists
| lie, but that they certainly have no absolute moral
| basis for refraining from lies.
You know, it is disgusting distortions and accusations just like
that which could make someone think twice about answering at all, David.
| Finally, despite all the bluff and bluster by
| Dawkins and Williams, they still have not answered
| the question!
Which is more important, David? The answer to the question, or
this ridiculous attempt to convince people there is no answer at all on
the basis of Dawkins' apparent unwillingness to answer it under the
conditions he was placed into, supposedly (according to him) under false
pretenses? Which is more important -- the bluster or the answer? The
above suggests the latter, and I say the latter, in which case the entire,
lengthy show does not amount to a hill of beans, because an answer does
exist. Sheesh, my field isn't even genetics and I know an answer exists.
It is like asking whether somebody knows why the sky is blue.
Even if they do not know, and should know, it does not change the fact
that an answer does exist. I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
hilarious if it were not so pathetic. It is a classic example of the
logic employed by some Biblical-literalist creationists all the time to
find "evidence" of "creation" in what is supposedly absent, often when it
is not actually absent anyway (the standard misrepresentations of
punctuated equilibrium and supposedly absent transitional fossils come to
mind as an example -- transitions between species *are* known, even if
punctuated equilibrium did claim there were none, which it doesn't
anyway).
[pointers to further information]
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Wesley R. Elsberry
<jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
[...]
DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
DB>information in the genome?"
[...]
Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
the parent species.
Next...
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"i wish there was something i wanted as badly as he wanted to fry himself" - a.
Richard Harter
>In article <75dt08$1of$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
>DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
>DB>information in the genome?"
>
>[...]
>
>Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
>
>Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
>are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
>the parent species.
I thought we agreed not to do that. :-)
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I have found an elegant proof that arithmetic is inconsistent.
Unfortunately the universe is too small to contain my proof.
tho...@my-dejanews.com
> David Buckna
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
Please see following link:
http://outcast.gene.com/ae/WN/SUA10/fishfreeze_497.html
Thank you,
James Powell
Jthomford
>It
> also shows that mutations and natural selection
> merely remove information, not add information, as
>particles-to-people evolution requires.
<snip>
> One of its highlights is the stumping of the
> ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
> the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you
>give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
> the information in the genome?’
<snip>
Makes great propoganda, doesn't it?
I wonder, Buckna- as of my writing I count three seperate substantive answers
posted to this Dawkins-stumper. Will you now revise the video to include them,
or just capitalize on the propoganda value?
"Brethren, they can lock us up, but we'll still do what the Bible tells us to
do. Either our wives are going to obey, or we're going to beat them!" - Rev.
Fred Phelps, noted homophobe.
Jthomford
>Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
> belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> forbids bearing false witness; atheistic skeptics
> like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such
> inhibitions. We are not saying that all atheists
> lie, but that they certainly have no absolute moral
> basis for refraining from lies.
Which makes unrepentant liars like Duane Guish all the worse, doesn't it? (Odd
that you chose the title "Skeptics choke on Frog: was Dawkins caught on the
hop?" Tired of Guish's bullfrog blunder coming back to haunt?)
Glossing over Creationist dishonesty is in itself dishonest, Buckna. And, in
light of the above paragraph, hyocritical.
sha...@bethelsprings.com
<snip>
>
> One of its highlights is the stumping of the
> ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
> the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you
> give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
> the information in the genome?’
>
> If anyone should know any true scientific (i.e.
> observable and testable) evidence that mutations
> and natural selection can add information, Dawkins
> should. However, the video shows that Dawkins was
> unable to provide any experimental evidence, and
> gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the
> question.
How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most scientific
areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add information
and you don't? Why would you act like you are part of some group stumping
evolutionists, which you call skeptics when in fact you are the skeptic, when
you don't know something so basic as this, a foundation of the evolutionary
theory?
It makes me doubt your assertion that he was stumped. It is much more likely
that he did not know how to give an answer that you and your skeptic friends
would understand. In fact, your assertion that his answer was unrelated to
the question proves this. He is an expert, by your own admission, and you
know less about the subject than a novice like me. You are in no position to
assert that his answer was unrelated. Instead, you should say, "I was too
ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
<snip>
> In their magazine The Skeptic, the
> editor, Barry Williams, published a vitriolic
> article accusing the video of deception, as well as
> smearing creationists in general.2
Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is deceptive. And
it is proper to smear special creationists in general, because your post is
typical of them.
I am a creationist and a Christian who is actually part of a kingdom from God
that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is incredibly
rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ to be
blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
> Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the end
> (combatting creationism) justifies the means
> (deception), how can anyone be sure that anything
> else they write is not deception for the good of
> the ‘cause’?
I don't know the Australian Skeptics, but I do know that this is a case of the
pot calling the kettle black, if indeed their is any deception in their
practices.
> Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
> belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> forbids bearing false witness;
Their is no "of course" about it, except that biblical creationists, so
called, claim to be bible followers. The evidence of their behavior, and
yours, expressly denies that claim. Personally, I think they are a plant of
the devil to discredit the Bible and the name of Christ to all thinking
persons.
<snip>
> To view the complete article, click on the URL
>
> <http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=3907>
>
> The video, "From a Frog to a Prince" is available from the Institute for
> Creation Research <http://www.icr.org>
>
> For residents of Canada or the U.S. who wish to receive a 10 minute video
> excerpt (in VHS format) from the UNEDITED Dawkins interview, which includes
> Gillian Brown asking Dawkins:
>
> "Could you give any example of an evolutionary process or mechanism which
> can be seen to create new functional information at the genetic level?"
>
> followed by Dawkins' long pause, and eventual response,
>
> send a postal money order for $10 (U.S. funds) to:
>
> DAWKINS VIDEO
> Box 27027
> Willow Park P.O.
> Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1X 7L7
>
> "Creationist Deception Exposed" by Barry Williams/ "Gillian Brown answers
> Barry Williams"
>
I recommend this, because you'll find that Dawkins answer is not what it is
made out to be in this article. A pause does not prove that a person does not
know the answer to a question. Especially when it is a question that can be
answered by about everyone who even participates in a forum like this.
Shammah Ben-Noach of Judah
--
Behold how good and how pleasant it is!
It can still happen.
Yahshua's kingdom in Bethel Springs, Tennessee
http://www.geocities.com/~yachad
Thomas Paine
(snip)
As I recall, (read of this many weeks ago) The video crew misrepresented
themselves. this was necessary because Dawkins, had he known their real
creationist affiliations, would never let them in the door.
During the interview, they started asking some questions that made it obvious
to Dawkins that they were not what they pretended to be, but creationists hout
to do a hack piece. One of the questions - that was not out of line for
Dawkins to answer, but was out of line if the film crew was not whao they
claimed to be ... threw Dawkins for a loop. This is where the long pause came
in. Dawkins was surprised by the question, and started to realize that these
people were liars out to do a creationist hack piece.
The film crew edited the tape to make it look like Dawkins couldn't, or had
trouble, answering the question. When, in fact, he was not only startled by
the question .. but what considering kicking the bastards out of his home.
He decided to stick with his promise and give the interview, even though they
had lied about their credentials and intent. (now that's integrity!).
>...
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
Thomas Paine
maff91
[crap deleted]
Creationist Deception Exposed
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm
Why should the scientific and business world take any notice of what
you and your fundie cults' ramblings?
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
The only way you can get people to accept your fantasy is to institute
a theocratic dictatorship and to get all free enterprise nationalized.
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
A Pagano
maff91 wrote:
[deletia]
Why should the scientific and business world take any notice of what you
and your fundie cults' ramblings?
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to buy
your argument.
Pagano replies:
Maff91 implies that the practical applications of specific evolutionary
theories can be used to justify the validity of the whole framework of
common descent. I think he is sadly mistaken.
Biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and other high tech companies employ
theories within the evolutionary framework which can be tested
rigorously through repeatable experiments. It is from the repeatability
that practical value is often derived. If repeatable empirical
observations is the "sword" over the validity of the claim that atom
became man then all of the critical transitions conjectured but never
observed and not empirically testable must be eliminated. But heck you
would be left with a model close to the creation science model.
If practical application and repeatable experiments are the quide you
should eliminate as valid all of the critical transitions conjectured to
be true between self-replicating molecule and man. But I
forgot...oops...even the self-replicating molecule must be assumed into
existence because modern science has so far refuted that such a molecule
could ever be produced naturalistically assuming all sorts of
appropriate initial conditions on an earth formed 4.6 billion years
ago. Ain't that a kick in the pants...
Secular skeptics are only skeptical of that which contradicts their
beliefs. But that sounds like the criticism maff91 has leveled at
creationists. Naw...couldn't be?
[deletia]
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and other high tech companies employ
>theories within the evolutionary framework which can be tested
>rigorously through repeatable experiments. It is from the repeatability
>that practical value is often derived. If repeatable empirical
>observations is the "sword" over the validity of the claim that atom
>became man then all of the critical transitions conjectured but never
>observed and not empirically testable must be eliminated. But heck you
>would be left with a model close to the creation science model.
of course, the fact that evolution is observed constantly, and
creation never, is overlooked by pagano. pagano is saying that any
science is wrong until it has ALL the answers.
i welcome seeing pagano attempt to apply such an idea to physics.
>
>If practical application and repeatable experiments are the quide you
>should eliminate as valid all of the critical transitions conjectured to
>be true between self-replicating molecule and man. But I
>forgot...oops...even the self-replicating molecule must be assumed into
>existence because modern science has so far refuted that such a molecule
>could ever be produced naturalistically assuming all sorts of
>appropriate initial conditions on an earth formed 4.6 billion years
>ago. Ain't that a kick in the pants...
really? it has? since the conditions under which life formed on earth
vary widely and we have no mechanism, yet, that we know caused life to
form, pagano is saying he knows how life did form, and he knows that
it didnt happen scientifically.
i welcome his proof of that idea. creationists talk the big talk.
they are, however, unable even to crawl let alone walk the walk.
>
>Secular skeptics are only skeptical of that which contradicts their
>beliefs. But that sounds like the criticism maff91 has leveled at
>creationists. Naw...couldn't be?
meaningless. since there are many religious scientists who accept
evolution, and the ONLY way pagano gets around this is to incorporate
anti-evolutionary thinking into john 3:16 his belief is both
unbiblical AND unscientific.
Pim van Meurs
A Pagano wrote:
>
>
> Secular skeptics are only skeptical of that which contradicts their
> beliefs. But that sounds like the criticism maff91 has leveled at
> creationists. Naw...couldn't be?
>
Of course this is a mere assertion on your part. But science has not been
accepted as the absolute truth, it has been accepted as tentative so unlike
creationists who hold the Bible to be the absolute/objective truth,
scientists are skeptical of more than just what contradicts their beliefs.
Science does not rely on dogma and has shown itself to be tentative as it
has rejected many old theories in favor of new ones.
Pagano's arguments are contradicted by reality and fact.
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
> maff91 wrote:
> [deletia]
> Why should the scientific and business world take any notice of what you
> and your fundie cults' ramblings?
>
> Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
> investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
> products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to buy
> your argument.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Maff91 implies that the practical applications of specific evolutionary
> theories can be used to justify the validity of the whole framework of
> common descent. I think he is sadly mistaken.
>
> theories within the evolutionary framework which can be tested
> rigorously through repeatable experiments. It is from the repeatability
> that practical value is often derived. If repeatable empirical
> observations is the "sword" over the validity of the claim that atom
> became man then all of the critical transitions conjectured but never
> observed and not empirically testable must be eliminated.
It has been pointed out several times to you that the observations can be
repeatable while the event observed may be singular (like a supernova, an
eruption of a volcano or a comet plunging into Jupiter) or happened in the
distant past (like the anatomy of Archeopteryx). So your argument about
"repeatable empirical observations" has been refuted.
But apparently you think that it makes a nice magic formula for exorcising the
demons of evolutionism that you keep repeating it again and again.
Regards,
HRG.
<rest snipped>
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
>
> DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
> DB>information in the genome?"
>
> [...]
>
> Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
>
> Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
> are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
> the parent species.
>
The following response was sent to me by Jonathan Wells, who gave permision to
post it to this forum:
Jonathan Wells writes:
"Polyploidy" is the spontaneous doubling (or tripling or quadrupling) of
chromosomes. Autopolyploidy occurs in a single species; even more common
is allopolyploidy, in which the spontaneous doubling of chromosomes occurs
after the hybridization of two different species. Polyploidy is an
important cause of reproductive isolation in plants, but is rare (if,
indeed, it happens at all) in animals.
Two observations are in order: (1) Polyploidy is merely the duplication of
existing chromosomes. No new genes are introduced. To call this an
increase in information is analogous to saying that we increase the
information in a book by obtaining a second copy of the same book. (2)
Polyploidy does produce speciation in the neo-Darwinian sense of
establishing reproductive isolation between sexually reproducing
populations. It has been reproduced in the laboratory, starting in the
1920's with the artificial production of an extant species of mint by
hybridization of two other closely related species. But the new species
produced by polyploidy are never dramatically different from the original
species. The polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than the
parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which to make more
gene products, not because any new features are added.
According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology: "Although
polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities, it
does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological characteristics
such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus polyploidy
does not cause the evolution of new genera or other higher taxa." (Douglas
Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 3rd edition. Sinauer, 1998)
Jonathan Wells
Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
and
Senior Fellow
The Discovery Institute, Seattle
Kevin D. Quitt
>According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology: "Although
>polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities,
So if it has new capabilities, then there is new information.
> it
>does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological characteristics
>such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis.
Morphological changes are not required by evolution. Evolution is the change,
and the changes are already given.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
wf...@enter.netxx
(2)
>Polyploidy does produce speciation in the neo-Darwinian sense of
>establishing reproductive isolation between sexually reproducing
>populations. It has been reproduced in the laboratory, starting in the
>1920's with the artificial production of an extant species of mint by
>hybridization of two other closely related species. But the new species
>produced by polyploidy are never dramatically different from the original
>species. The polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than the
>parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which to make more
>gene products, not because any new features are added.
Its a new species but no new features are added....
sounds like a contradiction to me...
>
>According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology: "Although
>polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities, it
>does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological characteristics
>such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus polyploidy
>does not cause the evolution of new genera or other higher taxa." (Douglas
>Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 3rd edition. Sinauer, 1998)
however, macroevolution can be a consequence as you admit..
yes, we already know that it happens. thank you.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
> An obvious example of this supposedly unanswerable question is the
>acquiring of resistance to antibiotics, and, also, additional genetic
>modifications to allow this resistance to occur in bacteria without great
>disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics. Experiments have been
>performed on clonal bacteria which did not have genes for resistance to
>antibiotics, and then some subsequently acquired it through mutation, and
>those mutants became abundant to the exclusion of non-resistant ones due
>to selection. It is plain old evolution by mutation, inheritance, and
>natural selection. I only wish it were not so easy to find an example
>where organisms have evolved new genetic information to circumvent
>techniques humans have developed to control them.
Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By Chance!", as
well as some other examples of mutations.
What follows is an excerpt from the discussion of antibiotic resistance in
microorganisms, and insecticide resistance in insects (pp. 138-144). In the
book, this excerpt was preceded by a discussion showing that the more
specific is a message (or an enzyme) the greater the information content, and
vice versa.
The excerpt follows:
==========================================================================
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out
to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. Let's examine
what's known about the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics and of insects
to pesticides.
Some bacteria have built into them at the outset a resistance to some
antibiotics. The resistance comes from an enzyme that alters the drug to
make it inactive. This type of resistance does not build up through
mutation. J. Davies and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin
expressed the opinion that the purpose of the enzyme may not be to offer
resistance to the drug. They did not profess to know its primary purpose,
but they considered it to be directed toward attacking small molecules
involved in some other, but so far unknown, cell function [Davies et al.
1971]. In their opinion, drug resistance in these cases may be only
fortuitous. On the other hand, our commercial antibiotics are the natural
products of certain fungi and bacteria [Aharonowitz and Cohen 1981]. One
might therefore expect that some bacteria would be endowed with an enzyme
providing resistance to them.
Bacteria that are not resistant can become resistant through infection by a
virus that carries the gene for resistance. The virus may have picked up
the gene from a naturally resistant bacterium. Also, bacteria can be
deliberately made resistant by artificially introducing into their DNA the
gene encoding the enzyme. Scientists today can transfer sections of DNA
from one organism to another. The gaining of antibiotic resistance in this
way is not an example of how evolution might add information. The genome of
the bacterium that acquired the resistance does indeed gain information.
But there is no gain for life as a whole. The resistant gene already
existed in some other bacterium or virus.
But some bacteria can mutate to become resistant to a drug to which it had
been sensitive. In these cases the function is new. Could such a mutation
demonstrate neo-Darwinian evolution?
Scientists have studied how streptomycin and other mycin drugs keep
bacteria from growing, and how a point mutation makes bacteria resistant to
the drug [Davies et al. 1971, Davies and Nomura 1972]. They found that a
molecule of the drug attaches to a matching site on a ribosome of the
bacterium and interferes with its making of protein, as shown in Fig. 5.3.
With the drug molecule attached, the ribosome is unable to put the right
amino acids together when it makes protein. It makes the wrong proteins. It
makes proteins that don't work. The bacterium then can't grow, can't
divide, and can't propagate.
The ribosomes of mammals don't have the site at which the mycin drugs can
attach, so the drugs can't harm them. Because the mycins can stop bacterial
growth without harming the host, they make useful antibiotics.
A point mutation makes the bacterium resistant to streptomycin by losing
information. If a mutation in the bacterium should happen to change the
ribosome site where the streptomycin attaches, the drug will no longer have
a place to which it can attach. Fig. 5.4 shows schematically how a change
in the matching site on the ribosome can prevent a streptomycin molecule
from fitting onto the ribosome and interfering with its operation. The drug
molecule cannot attach to the ribosome, so it cannot interfere with its
making of protein, and the bacterium becomes resistant.
You can see from Fig. 5.4 that the change could be in several different
places on the matching site and still grant resistance to the bacterium.
Any one of several changes in the attachment site on the ribosomal protein
is enough to spoil its match with the mycin. That means that a change in
any one of several DNA nucleotides in the corresponding gene can confer
resistance on the bacterium. Several different mutations in bacteria have
indeed been found to result in streptomycin resistance [Gartner & Orias
1966]. We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the
ribosome protein, and that means losing genetic information. This loss of
information leads to a loss of sensitivity to the drug and hence to
resistance. Since the information loss is in the gene, the effect is
heritable, and a whole strain of resistant bacteria can arise from the
mutation.
Although such a mutation can have selective value, it decreases rather than
increases the genetic information. It therefore cannot be typical of
mutations that are supposed to help form small steps that make up
macroevolution. Those steps must, on the average, add information. Even
though resistance is gained, it's gained not by adding something, but by
losing it. Rather than say that the bacterium gained resistance to the
antibiotic, we would be more correct to say that it lost its sensitivity to
it. It lost information.
The NDT is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built
up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a
bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological
differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information
than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations
that lose it. A business can't make money by losing it a little at a time.
Scientists have found how a mutation can make an insect resistant to an
insecticide. A molecule of the insecticide DDT acts by binding itself to a
specific matching site on the membrane of the insect's nerve cells. In this
position it prevents the nerve from functioning properly. When enough of
the insect nerve cells have DDT molecules bound to them, the nervous system
breaks down and the insect dies [Beeman 1982].
How does an insect become resistant? It becomes resistant by losing its
sensitivity to the DDT. This loss is the result of a mutation that changes
the site on the nerve cell at which the DDT molecule binds, preventing the
DDT from binding [Tanaka et al. 1984]. Any mutation that spoils the match
between the DDT and the nerve cell will make the insect resistant. As with
bacteria, resistance can come by reducing the specificity of the protein of
the nerve cell.
Changing an amino acid in a protein very often affects the way the protein
functions. An organism is generally well adapted to its niche. Its proteins
are well suited to carrying out their functions. A change in one of its
proteins is then likely to degrade the organism in some way. In particular,
when an organism becomes resistant to a drug through a change in one of its
proteins, it is likely to become less fit in some other way. Of course, so
long as the drug is present, the organism has to be resistant to survive,
even at the price of being less fit in another way. But when the drug is
removed, the nonresistant type is again more adaptive.
A mutation in bacteria that makes it resistant to streptomycin reduces the
specificity of a protein in the ribosome. When the ribosome becomes less
specific, its performance is degraded. T. K. Gartner and E. Orias from the
University of California in Santa Barbara reported some time ago that the
mutations that make bacteria resistant to streptomycin degrade their
ribosomes [Gartner and Orias 1966]. The mutation makes the ribosome slower
than normal in translating some of the RNA codons into protein.
Degrading side effects have also been noted in insects that have become
resistant to insecticides. M. W. Rowland from the Rothamsted Experimental
Station in Hertfordshire, England has reported that mosquitoes that have
become resistant to dieldrin are less active and slower to respond to
stimuli than are other insects [Rowland 1987]. Their resistance to the
insecticide is thus bought at the price of a more sluggish nervous system.
The information loss on the molecular level then appears as a loss in the
performance of the insect.
==========================================================================
> Also take a look at the August 1st issue of _New_Scientist_, p.14,
>which talks about how bacteria can be coaxed into evolving the ability to
>incorporate highly unusual amino acids into their biological systems. The
>situation is quite artificial, but the process has definitely added new
>information of some kind to the biological system.
It added new information in this instance because it was "coaxed" on, and as
McCrae admits, the situation "is quite artificial". Scientists can also graft
on new information. But if that is the only way they can see it becoming part
of the genome, I wonder what or who they think was involved in the
coaxing/grafting mechanism when that first cell was waiting to evolve?
Articles by Dr. David N. Menton:
A Vast Number of Lucky Mutations Made Us
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm
Evidences From Biology
http://www.gennet.org/BIOLOGY.htm
> Look, I haven't seen the video, all I have seen are explanations
>of it, but I don't see the point. Even if I assume your premise is
>entirely valid, and that Dawkin's really was stumped (something I doubt,
>but will grant for the sake of the argument), big deal. His supposed
>failure is irrelevant to the scientific issue. I know of examples "of an
>evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new
>functional information at the genetic level",
What McCrae needs to do is list some examples that aren't "coaxed" or in an
artificial situation.
>so I could care less what
>Dawkins did or did not present in reply.
McCrae is doing what is done by many Darwinists--when the first attack fails
(eg. the attack on Gillian Brown's film), then go to your second line of
defense, which is some variation of "It really doesn't matter anyway; that's a
stupid question to ask."
> It is like asking whether somebody knows why the sky is blue.
>Even if they do not know, and should know, it does not change the fact
>that an answer does exist. I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
>supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
>hilarious if it were not so pathetic. It is a classic example of the
>logic employed by some Biblical-literalist creationists all the time to
>find "evidence" of "creation" in what is supposedly absent, often when it
>is not actually absent anyway (the standard misrepresentations of
>punctuated equilibrium and supposedly absent transitional fossils come to
>mind as an example -- transitions between species *are* known, even if
>punctuated equilibrium did claim there were none, which it doesn't
>anyway).
Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments?
David Buckna
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4881/topten.html
Donald C. Lindsay
David Buckna wrote:
<junk snipped>
>Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
>forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
>explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
This is false. They said the exact opposite, and you are putting
words into their mouths. Please do not do this again.
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/punk_eek.html
The theory predicts that evidence will be in general difficult to
find. However, it predicts that the difficult-to-find evidence will
in fact be found sometimes, and will have certain specific
characteristics. Such evidence _has_ been found. Therefore the
theory was the correct explanation of those cases, and the theory is a
viable candidate explanation in many other cases.
>I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
Yes. That's why punctuated equilibrium is a good theory. Now tell us
a good theory of Creation. Be sure to explain things like a defunct
virus being found in the identical place in the DNA of sheep and
dolphins:
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
--
Don
www.best.com/~dlindsay
Fuck ya, Buckna
Listmembers who are interested in creationism may find some
useful information in the report at
http://www.csulb.edu/~ttl/83combt.htm
Pete Dunkelberg
> Our new video From a Frog to a Prince
> (right) is having a beneficial effect. It
> illustrates the amazing design in living things,
> and the encyclopedic information stored in the DNA,
> required as a blueprint for all the designs. It
> also shows that mutations and natural selection
> merely remove information, not add information, as
> particles-to-people evolution requires.
>
information, but any other, changed DNA is not ?? But current DNA is
a mutated form of previous DNA...
> One of its highlights is the stumping of the
> ardently atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins1 by
> the simple question: ‘Professor Dawkins, can you
> give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
> the information in the genome?’
How about gene duplication, followed by changes to give TWO
proteins that did not exist before?
Pete
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
(Australia)
---
In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
> How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
> scientific
> areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
> information
> and you don't?
>
Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information. A
beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
sea), it stil removes the information for flight. Another example is
creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
> Why would you act like you are part of some group stumping
> evolutionists, which you call skeptics when in fact you are the
> skeptic, when
> you don't know something so basic as this, a foundation of the
> evolutionary
> theory?
>
Yes, a foundation lacking experimental support -- you have proven
nothing to the contrary.
> It makes me doubt your assertion that he was stumped. It is much more
> likely
> that he did not know how to give an answer that you and your skeptic
> friends
> would understand. In fact, your assertion that his answer was
> unrelated to
> the question proves this. He is an expert, by your own admission, and
> you
> know less about the subject than a novice like me.
>
In your dreams.
> You are in no position to assert that his answer was unrelated.
> Instead, you should say, "I was too
> ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
>
No, you are a novice, and it shows in your confusion between
'beneficial' and 'adding information'.
> Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is
> deceptive.
>
Because you are a self-confessed novice who lacks the most basic
understanding of information theory.
> And it is proper to smear special creationists in general, because
> your post is
> typical of them.
>
Since when is smearing the Christian thing to do?
> I am a creationist and a Christian
>
Theses words are so flexible these days. Even some people who deny the
Resurrection and virginal conception claim to be Christian and even wear
dog-collars.
> who is actually part of a kingdom from God
> that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is
> incredibly
> rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
> special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ
> to be
> blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
>
The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
> > Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the
> end
> > (combatting creationism) justifies the means
> > (deception), how can anyone be sure that
> anything
> > else they write is not deception for the good of
> > the 宑ause�
>
> I don't know the Australian Skeptics, but I do know that this is a
> case of the
> pot calling the kettle black, if indeed their is any deception in
> their
> practices.
>
Yes, there is, especially by their hero Ian Plimer, who brags about it.
> > Of course, biblical creationists are committed
> to
> > belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> > forbids bearing false witness;
>
> Their is no "of course" about it, except that biblical creationists,
> so
> called, claim to be bible followers. The evidence of their behavior,
> and
> yours, expressly denies that claim.
>
Not proven -- again you jump to conclusions based on ignorance, and have
refused to follow Prov. 18:17.
> Personally, I think they are a plant of
> the devil to discredit the Bible and the name of Christ to all
> thinking
> persons.
>
I'm surprised you believe in the Devil, since you don't believe Christ's
claim that man and woman were created 'at the beginning' (not by a
process of death and suffering over billions of years) -- Mark 10:6; and
deny His belief in the global Flood (Luke 17:26-27). And why are you
worried about discrediting the Bible since you clearly don't believe
Genesis?
Jonathan Sarfati
may...@andrews.edu
Actually, in this case we don't have such absence. Mutation and selection are
capable of increasing information in the genome, by any reasonable definition
of the word information.
> Specifically, even
> assuming that Dawkins was actually stumped, so what?
David has posted about this before, and there was some discussion about it. I
forget all the details, but I do remember that Dawkins claims he was not
stumped, and there was controversy about who was right.
> Since when does the
> issue stand or fall on the basis of what Dawkins does or does not say for
> whatever reason?
Yes, whatever actually happened during the interview, one thing is for sure:
namely, that Dawkins failed to give a coherent response. I agree that a
popularizer of science (or even a professional scientist) should not be the
yardstick against which scientific theories are measured; but I would not
deny that such peoples' opinions are at least a rough measure of how
successful those theories are. But using such a crude estimate of a theory's
success is probably associated with laziness, or, perhaps more significantly,
intellectual dishonesty (e.g., "Hey! Let's not study this too carefully, lest
we find out we're wrong; let's just ask this expert a real quick question!").
> An obvious example of this supposedly unanswerable question is the
> acquiring of resistance to antibiotics, and, also, additional genetic
> modifications to allow this resistance to occur in bacteria without great
> disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics. Experiments have been
> performed on clonal bacteria which did not have genes for resistance to
> antibiotics, and then some subsequently acquired it through mutation, and
> those mutants became abundant to the exclusion of non-resistant ones due
> to selection. It is plain old evolution by mutation, inheritance, and
> natural selection. I only wish it were not so easy to find an example
> where organisms have evolved new genetic information to circumvent
> techniques humans have developed to control them.
Yes, he was told almost exactly this the last time he posted this. It was some
trivial example of microevolution that was used. It may have been the
antibiotics one.
snip
> |
> | Of course, biblical creationists are committed to
> | belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> | forbids bearing false witness; atheistic skeptics
> | like Plimer, Dawkins and Williams have no such
> | inhibitions. We are not saying that all atheists
> | lie, but that they certainly have no absolute moral
> | basis for refraining from lies.
>
> You know, it is disgusting distortions and accusations just like
> that which could make someone think twice about answering at all, David.
David used to be really quiet; all he did was post links to various
creationist sites. But of late, he's been doing more: making specific
creationist claims, and accusations. One good thing about him, though, is
that he at least seems to be fairly well educated, drawing on some of the
higher class creationist arguments (these arguments are still wrong, of
course). Wrt this specific accusation, I would say, I would not think twice
about answering, since it seems to be a pretty common Christian
fundamentalist misconception about atheists, and since I am an atheist, in
the sense that I don't believe that God exists. I would say that it's true
that we don't have an "absolute moral basis," but that doesn't mean we don't
have any moral basis.
People don't like liars, and atheists are just as sensitive to social
approval as anyone else; an atheist doesn't want to go around thinking, "I'm
a liar; people would dislike me if they knew how often I lie," so we avoid
lying. Except for a thin cultural veneer, the morals of atheists and theists
seem to be almost indistinguishable from each other; feelings like guilt,
responsibility, remorse and such (what we call a "conscience") appear to
purely products of human social awareness. There is no evidence that anything
else is involved.
> | Finally, despite all the bluff and bluster by
> | Dawkins and Williams, they still have not answered
> | the question!
>
> Which is more important, David? The answer to the question, or
> this ridiculous attempt to convince people there is no answer at all on
> the basis of Dawkins' apparent unwillingness to answer it under the
> conditions he was placed into, supposedly (according to him) under false
> pretenses? Which is more important -- the bluster or the answer? The
> above suggests the latter, and I say the latter, in which case the entire,
> lengthy show does not amount to a hill of beans, because an answer does
> exist. Sheesh, my field isn't even genetics and I know an answer exists.
Yeah, that was a pretty easy one. But the thing is, the most intelligent sorts
of creationists are precisely the ones that tend to use it. I think they're
purposely stopping themselves from thinking up the solution to this simple
"conundrum."
--vince
Pim van Meurs
"Donald C. Lindsay" wrote:
> David Buckna wrote:
>
> <junk snipped>
>
> >Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
> >forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
> >explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
>
> This is false. They said the exact opposite, and you are putting
> words into their mouths. Please do not do this again.
>
> http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/punk_eek.html
>
> The theory predicts that evidence will be in general difficult to
> find. However, it predicts that the difficult-to-find evidence will
> in fact be found sometimes, and will have certain specific
> characteristics. Such evidence _has_ been found. Therefore the
> theory was the correct explanation of those cases, and the theory is a
> viable candidate explanation in many other cases.
>
David should be ashamed of himself.
>
> >I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
>
> Yes. That's why punctuated equilibrium is a good theory. Now tell us
> a good theory of Creation. Be sure to explain things like a defunct
> virus being found in the identical place in the DNA of sheep and
> dolphins:
>
> http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
>
Don't hold David to standards of science. He obviously is not equipped to deal
with that.
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information.
Perhaps true but that depends on you defining information and methods to quantify
information
> A beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
> example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> sea), it stil removes the information for flight.
But adds information for winglessness
> Another example is creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial
> to lose the
> information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
> to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
> light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
> be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
>
So as you show information is determined not merely by morphology but also by
circumstance.
Gaining wings in an environment not allowing flight could be counterproductive.
>
> Yes, a foundation lacking experimental support -- you have proven
> nothing to the contrary.
>
I am more interested in you proving to support.
> > You are in no position to assert that his answer was unrelated.
> > Instead, you should say, "I was too
> > ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
> >
> No, you are a novice, and it shows in your confusion between
> 'beneficial' and 'adding information'.
>
Then define information and allow us to determine to quantify it.
>
> > Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is
> > deceptive.
> >
> Because you are a self-confessed novice who lacks the most basic
> understanding of information theory.
>
That claim I have heard before from creationists. But they were unable to support
that idea.
>
> > I am a creationist and a Christian
> >
> Theses words are so flexible these days. Even some people who deny the
> Resurrection and virginal conception claim to be Christian and even wear
> dog-collars.
>
ROTFL. And perhaps they are Christians ?
>
> > who is actually part of a kingdom from God
> > that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is
> > incredibly
> > rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
> > special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ
> > to be
> > blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
> >
> The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
> 'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
> cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
> Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
>
ROTFL. Perhaps you should look at who is blashepying here.
It is interesting to see how some "Christians" are very willing to judge but do
not want to be judged.
I guess they need to read up on what Christ said on this matter. Nor is
namecalling a very convincing
argument.
I am sure Christ will forgive you for being the mouthpiece of the "devil" ?
Wesley R. Elsberry
<jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <1998121818...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>,
> "Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>> In article <75dt08$1of$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
WRE> [...]
DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
DB>information in the genome?"
WRE> [...]
WRE> Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
WRE> Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
WRE> are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
WRE> the parent species.
WRE> Next...
DB>The following response was sent to me by Jonathan Wells,
DB>who gave permision to post it to this forum:
Tell Dr. Wells "Hi!" for me.
DB>Jonathan Wells writes:
JW>"Polyploidy" is the spontaneous doubling (or tripling or
JW>quadrupling) of chromosomes. Autopolyploidy occurs in a
JW>single species; even more common is allopolyploidy, in which
JW>the spontaneous doubling of chromosomes occurs after the
JW>hybridization of two different species. Polyploidy is an
JW>important cause of reproductive isolation in plants, but is
JW>rare (if, indeed, it happens at all) in animals.
Nice summary, up to the final assertion, for which there is
Hyla versicolor as an example. Not only tetraploidy in an
animal species, but one in which there is evidence of there
having been at least two separate events of tetraploidy
contributing to the population. There are certain lizards
with 3N females which may reproduce parthenogenetically, or
sexually with 2N males of the parent species. The bottom-line
rule-of-thumb is that any genomic assemblage of more than
about 11 chromosomes is likely to have had one or more
polyploid events somewhere in its lineage.
JW>Two observations are in order: (1) Polyploidy is merely the
JW>duplication of existing chromosomes. No new genes are
JW>introduced.
It is a different thing to assert that "no new genes are
introduced" than it is to assert that "no new genes with
completely novel content are introduced". The example of the
different morphology of tetraploid orchids is most easily
explained as due to polygenic inheritance, in which case the
chromosome doubling also doubles the number of genes which
influence each trait. This ties in nicely with Shannon-style
information analyses (see below).
JW>To call this an increase in information is analogous to
JW>saying that we increase the information in a book by obtaining
JW>a second copy of the same book.
Bad analogy. Having two copies of the same book does not
change the information content of one of the copies, but
it does make a difference to the information content of
the assemblage. Information should not be confounded
with meaning.
Glenn Morton has written about these issues, referencing
various insights to work by Hubert Yockey. I won't quote, but
I'll try to give some flavor. Let's employ a Shannon-style
definition, where we have H = - sum_i p_i log p_i, where p_i
is the probability of a symbol appearing in the message in
question, and i is an iterator over each character in the
message. If we have a heterogenous message K composed of N
symbols, we obtain H_K. Now, we compose message L as a
concatenation of two instances of message K, thus having
length 2N. Guess what? H increases. H_L is 2*H_K. The
information content has doubled. The only case where this
would not hold is when the original message K is *homogenous*,
consisting solely of repeats of a single symbol (in which case
H_K and H_L are precisely 0). Polyploidy necessarily
represents an increase in information under Shannon-style
definitions. It is important to note that "information" and
"meaning" are separate concerns. I tried, with the tetraploid
orchid example, to provide a case that satisfied not only the
information-theoretic sense of the original question, but also
that such an increase would be tied to some meaning. In the
tetraploid orchid case, that was the difference in morphology
seen between parent species and daughter species.
If Dr. Wells wishes to state that information has not
increased, I will ask under *what* definition of information
he is making that claim.
JW>(2) Polyploidy does produce speciation in the neo-Darwinian
JW>sense of establishing reproductive isolation between sexually
JW>reproducing populations.
Well, the Biological Species Concept sense, rather than the
"Neo-Darwinian" sense. There are some weird cases, like those
3N lizards mentioned above. Tetraploidy is not a guaranteed
bar to crosses with the parent population, and some
circumstances with mixes of 2N, 3N, and 4N individuals are
known. Biology is such a messy topic.
JW>It has been reproduced in the laboratory, starting in the
JW>1920's with the artificial production of an extant species of
JW>mint by hybridization of two other closely related species.
JW>But the new species produced by polyploidy are never
JW>dramatically different from the original species. The
JW>polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than the
JW>parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which
JW>to make more gene products, not because any new features are
JW>added.
Because the morphology is *different* from the parent species,
we have established that the information content of the
daughter species is *different*. OK, a difference could be
either an increase or a decrease, but it will be one or the
other. This difference is, as Dr. Wells describes above, due
to the *extra* copies of genes, and thus the *increased* (not
*decreased*) information content of the genome. The
calculations based on the definition of information show that
polyploidy necessarily increases information. One might argue
that one has not increased *meaning* thereby, but that is a
different topic.
JW>According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology:
JW>"Although polyploidy may confer new physiological and
JW>ecological capabilities, it does not, as far as we know,
JW>confer major new morphological characteristics such as
JW>differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus
JW>polyploidy does not cause the evolution of new genera or
JW>other higher taxa." (Douglas Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY,
JW>3rd edition. Sinauer, 1998)
It's a nice quote, but pretty much orthogonal to the question
at issue, which was: "[...] can you give an example of a
genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen
to increase the information in the genome?" *Information
increase*, not "dramatic information increase" or "novel
features" or "generation of higher taxa". So far, nothing
that Dr. Wells has provided puts the observed information
increase due to tetraploid speciation in orchids in doubt as a
completely sufficient answer to the actual question that was
posed.
And Futuyma is slightly in error in his statement, as the
genus Triticale is due to allopolyploid hybridization. See
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/chromnumber/number7.htm
Even Intelligent Design proponents answer the given question
in the affirmative. In his 1997 NTSE essay, William Dembski
attempted to show that natural selection was incapable of
producing "complex specified information" by means of deriving
an upper bound on per-generation information increase due to
the action of natural selection. What did Dembski say about
natural selection and information increases? "From these
observations it is clear that selection can accumulate a lot
of information over successive generations." Sounds like
genomic information increase is unexceptionable to Dembski.
Bob Schadewald has a nice illustration of the basic problem
with casual use of the term "information" by many
anti-evolutionists. Those anti-evolutionists would like to
assert that point mutations never increase information, but
they also assert that information can decrease thereby. Now,
consider an organism that has a point mutation that causes the
protein product to be non-functional. Some have made
arguments that this kind of situation clearly represents a
*decrease* in information. But in subsequent offspring, a
point mutation can restore function, and thus must be an
*increase* in information from the parent's state. If one
accepts that the first change represents a decrease, one is
obliged to recognize that the second change represents an
increase. The original anti-evolutionary assertion is false.
JW>Jonathan Wells
JW>Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
JW>University of California, Berkeley
JW>and
JW>Senior Fellow
JW>The Discovery Institute, Seattle
It's too bad the NTSE listserver never really got going. I
think Dr. Wells and I could have had some pretty good
discussions over the past couple of years.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University
Near-Perpetual Student and General Bioacoustics Dogsbody
References
Ptacek, M. B. , Gerhardt, H. C. and Sage, R. D. 1994. Speciation by
polyploidy in treefrogs: multiple origins of the tetraploid, Hyla
versicolor. Evolution 48:898-908.
Hyla versicolor is the basis of an least one lab assignment.
http://bio.fsu.edu/~james/compass.html
Ritke, M.E. and M.L. Beck. 1991. An interspecific satellite pair
association between Hyla chyroscelis and Hyla
versicolor. Herpetological Review 22:49-51.
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/animal_behavior/SPECIATE.HTM#anchor830800
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/chromnumber/number7.htm
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"They all say\Someday soon\All my sins\Will be forgiven"-WZ
may...@andrews.edu
That's interesting; but are you really arguing that no mutation, either in
bacteria or elsewhere, can ever increase specificity? Why would mutations be
unable to increase specificity, if natural selection is involved? Take
Darwin's finches, for example. They started out with normal bird beaks, and
then became specialized for different niches; this seems to me like the beaks
were becoming more specific.
> Articles by Dr. David N. Menton:
>
> A Vast Number of Lucky Mutations Made Us
> http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm
>
> Evidences From Biology
> http://www.gennet.org/BIOLOGY.htm
>
> > Look, I haven't seen the video, all I have seen are explanations
> >of it, but I don't see the point. Even if I assume your premise is
> >entirely valid, and that Dawkin's really was stumped (something I doubt,
> >but will grant for the sake of the argument), big deal. His supposed
> >failure is irrelevant to the scientific issue. I know of examples "of an
> >evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new
> >functional information at the genetic level",
>
> What McCrae needs to do is list some examples that aren't "coaxed" or in an
> artificial situation.
Well, what about Darwin's finches? Or any other well-known example of
specialization? You seem to be thinking very superficially about this issue.
> >so I could care less what
> >Dawkins did or did not present in reply.
>
> McCrae is doing what is done by many Darwinists--when the first attack fails
> (eg. the attack on Gillian Brown's film), then go to your second line of
> defense, which is some variation of "It really doesn't matter anyway; that's a
> stupid question to ask."
Sorry if it seemed like a second line of defense; it should have been
presented at the same time. I.e., "Is Gillian Brown's story accurate? And
another thing, the question she asked was really superficial, i.e., showed
lack of comprehension of the concept of natural selection."
> > It is like asking whether somebody knows why the sky is blue.
> >Even if they do not know, and should know, it does not change the fact
> >that an answer does exist. I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
> >supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
> >hilarious if it were not so pathetic. It is a classic example of the
> >logic employed by some Biblical-literalist creationists all the time to
> >find "evidence" of "creation" in what is supposedly absent, often when it
> >is not actually absent anyway (the standard misrepresentations of
> >punctuated equilibrium and supposedly absent transitional fossils come to
> >mind as an example -- transitions between species *are* known, even if
> >punctuated equilibrium did claim there were none, which it doesn't
> >anyway).
>
> Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory put
> forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but then
> explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
That's obviously a bit of a distortion, but I have my doubts about the
validity of punctuated equilibrium. Right now, it seems like a fairly stupid
idea, all things considered. I really need to research the topic more before
I can be sure of this, though. But you should be aware that punctuated
equilibrium has utterly no relevance to the creation/evolution controversy.
Most of the really well-educated young earth creationists have had no
difficulty accepting it and adapting it to creationist thought. And the flip
side, of course, is that the fossil record clearly demonstrates evolutionary
change, regardless of whether or not punctuated equilibrium is true.
> I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
I doubt that that's true, in general. Didn't Sherlock Holmes once say
something about knowing when to look for the absence of things, like a dog
not barking, or something like that? The same principle would apply in
science.
> In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
> genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments?
I would recommend that you work on grasping the concept of natural selection;
if it doesn't become obvious to you after five or ten minutes of thought why
mutation and selection can easily increase specificity, just post again, with
something like "I still don't get it! How can mutation and selection increase
specificty?" and I'll be glad to explain it in more detail for you.
--vince
wf...@enter.netxx
>The following is posted on behalf of Jonathan Sarfati of _Answers in Genesis_
>(Australia)
>
>---
>In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
>
>> How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
>> scientific
>> areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
>> information
>> and you don't?
>>
>Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
>beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information.
meaningless. if a nucleotide sequence changes in a gene, how do you
determine that information has 'not been added'?
A
>beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
>example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
>although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
>sea), it stil removes the information for flight.
of course when additions are seen...such as in the evolution of
whales, when the sinus cavities gained the ability to be filled with
blood to equalize pressure for deep sea diving, this guy will say they
lost something else...
nonsense. more creationist nonsense.
Another example is
>creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
>information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
>to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
>light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
>be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
yes ive read answers in genesis. a cartoon parody of evolution by
religious fundamentalists. ever wonder why creationism is limited to
fundamentalists? think it might be a religious bias, perhaps?
as humans evolved from ancestors, and gained intelligence, how was
that a 'loss' of information?
>
>>
>The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
>'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
>cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
>Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
of course nowhere in the bible does it say the bible is literally
true...but creationists want all xtians to believe their nonsense, as
well as making up stuff about 'loss of information' to try to get
scientists to do so. that creationism is an american fundamentalist
cult belief seems to escape their notice.
>
>>
>I'm surprised you believe in the Devil, since you don't believe Christ's
>claim that man and woman were created 'at the beginning' (not by a
>process of death and suffering over billions of years) -- Mark 10:6; and
>deny His belief in the global Flood (Luke 17:26-27). And why are you
>worried about discrediting the Bible since you clearly don't believe
>Genesis?
since there is no evidence of a worldwide flood, kinda means your view
of the bible is wrong, doesnt it?
>
Wesley R. Elsberry
>In article <75jsej$o4q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <75e05a$iuh$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
>> mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
[...]
VM>That's obviously a bit of a distortion, but I have my
VM>doubts about the validity of punctuated equilibrium. Right
VM>now, it seems like a fairly stupid idea, all things
VM>considered. I really need to research the topic more before
VM>I can be sure of this, though.
[...]
OK, what is it that Vince doesn't like about allopatric
speciation via peripheral isolates?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"In a hotel room above Times Square\It's like a closet"-O97s
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> DB> "[...] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> DB>evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the
> DB>information in the genome?"
>
> Autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.
>
> Information increase is indicated because such tetraploids
> are typically more robust and grow to a larger size than
> the parent species.
Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
genetic information increase.
Dave Greene
dic...@drizzle.com
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of Jonathan Sarfati of _Answers in Genesis_
> (Australia)
>
> ---
> In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
>
> > How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
> > scientific
> > areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
> > information
> > and you don't?
> >
> Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information. A
> beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism.
Now, you posted a huge response, but missed the most important point of his
post. I will repeat if for you: a mutation can be beneficial and can add
information. Get that? Can add. Not always add, but can add.
As in sometimes it does add information. Now, when you get done beating around
the point he made, will you answer it?
An
> example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> sea), it stil removes the information for flight. Another example is
> creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
> information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
> to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
> light.
Now, are those mutations truly removing information, or are they adding
information? By this I mean, is the information there to form the wing or
eye, but some information added to turn it off? Not being a geneticist, I
can't say for sure, but it certainly seems like that would be the case,
rather than the information being removed. Oh, and I can certainly think of a
few beneficial mutations that have happened over many millenium. Such as
horses hooves. Originally the horses walked on their feet like many animals
do. But given environment that they are in, they changed from walking on
their feet, to walking on their toenails, and since they only needed one or 2
toes to do this with, the other toes disappeared. But the genetic code for
them is still there, only turned off, as occaisionally the toes are
expressed. Now that seems to me that something was added to turn it off.
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
email: dic...@drizzle.com
bigd...@my-dejanews.com
Pim van Meurs <ent...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>
> jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> > beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information.
>
quantify
> information
>
> > example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> > although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> > sea), it stil removes the information for flight.
>
Its perhaps worth considering that the genetic coding for wings still exists
in the genome of the wingless beetles. While the "functionality of wings" is
no longer present in the phenotype, this does not mean that the coding for
wings disappeared; it may simply no longer be expressed. And avoid using the
term "information" when talking about function. This is what creationists do.
>
Stuart
may...@andrews.edu
> > jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> In article <75e05a$iuh$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> >> mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
>
>
> VM>That's obviously a bit of a distortion, but I have my
> VM>doubts about the validity of punctuated equilibrium. Right
> VM>now, it seems like a fairly stupid idea, all things
> VM>considered. I really need to research the topic more before
> VM>I can be sure of this, though.
>
> [...]
>
> OK, what is it that Vince doesn't like about allopatric
> speciation via peripheral isolates?
That's true, I've heard that punctuated equilibrium is really just an
exaggerated version of allopatric speciation; but it's precisely this
extremism that bothers me. Or more accurately, it's Gould that bothers me,
since allopatric speciation probably really is the main mode of speciation in
nature. His specific claims about PE seem bizarre, mainly because he seems to
have been drawing on his self-perception as an original thinker, rather than
on new data. For example, there's the claim that speciation doesn't happen in
the absence of significant morphological change: where did he get that? The
evidence (e.g., sibling species) disproves it.
And the reverse claim (that significant morphological change doesn't happen
in the absence of speciation) is disproved by the existence of subspecies
(e.g., clines). Paleontologically, I can't help but wonder if he wasn't
influenced by the creationists, or at least by the same people that the
creationists were quoting from in the early days. I don't know if he ever
thought PE was supposed to provide the solution to these supposed gaps, but
if he didn't there's good reason to suspect he had other quackish ideas which
were supposed to provide such a solution (e.g., his flirtations with
Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory); in any case, he seems to lack a good
sense of the overall patterns found in the fossil record, so it's not
surprising that studies done in the mid 1980s on Tertiary mammals (for
example) in an attempt to test punctuated equilibrium, according to Caroll's
_Pattern's and Processes_, at the very least, failed to dramatically confirm
Gould's theories about stasis. I think Gould just assumed that because all
the specimens belonging to a fossil species were classified as the same
species, it followed that they were identical; but this doesn't seem to be
the case.
theo...@my-dejanews.com
daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
> Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
> genetic information increase.
>
> Dave Greene
He already did in this post:
<1998122106...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>
entitled:
"Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re: Skeptics choke on frog)"
For the explanation, he used Shannon's definition of information.
--
Daniel "Theophage" Clark
Director, EAC Snack Foods Division
http://www.azsunset.com/~drdan/eac.html
- Got Reason?
mc...@ctiseattle.com
<YAWN>
> David Buckna
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4881/topten.html
One of the really weird things about the claims by creationists who are using
the "there is no increase in information when a gene is duplicated" argument
is that they seem to be blithely unaware that the duplication is often
inaccurate. That is, sometimes genes are excised with crucial regulatory
elements missing, as is the case with oncogenes, or the gene is not otherwise
faithfully duplicated.
I don't want to argue here about the definition of information. People like
Wesker3, David Buckna and Anthony Pagano are, simply, wrong with respect to
their definition of information. Indeed they have defined it in such narrow
terms, and without regards to the evidence, that their arguments fail
utterly. Others here on T.O. have done a good job of showing why they are
wrong.
David Buckna asked in this thread; "In closing, can anyone reference _any_
study that has shown that duplicated genes acquired different functions
during an experiment or series of experiments?"
What I want to submit here is a (very) brief demonstration that biologists do
have experimental evidence, and a really great deal of it, that gene
duplication can increase the amount of information contained within the
genome of an organism. Note that the ACT of gene duplication is
"information-content neutral". What I mean by that is that gene duplication
can result in no change, an increase or decrease in the information content
of a cell. It all depends on the context.
Before I go on here, I want to pre-empt the nit-pickers by saying that I am
well aware that some of the experimental evidence for gene duplication is the
result of somatic mutations and as such do not contribute to the genetic
variability of a population of organisms. Most scientists will appreciate the
fact that it is NOT necessary to demonstrate that each and every case of gene
duplication must also be shown to occur in gametes for these examples to have
validity. The only thing I need to do here is to show that these creationists
are wrong wrong wrong. Gene duplication can, and does, result in an increase
in information.
Sometimes the gene is duplicated in such a way that the gene is mutated and
expression of the gene is dis-regulated, as is the case when the proteins
encoded by these genes interact in a form of negative autoregulation. Please
note that dis-regulation means regulation that is changed in some way. It
DOES NOT mean that the genes are not regulated. A tandem gene duplication
called eDp24, which controls the sexual phenotype in the nematode C. elegans,
and consists of incomplete copies of tra-1, an autosomal sex-determining
gene, dis-regulates tra-1. These kinds of mutations result in
loss-of-function (in C. elegans, masculinizing) and gain-of-function
(dominant feminizing) alleles (see, for example, Molecular cloning and
duplication of the nematode sex-determining gene tra-1.Hodgkin J Genetics
1993 Mar;133(3):543-60).
Sometimes the genes are duplicated in such a way that 3253 E9& 34O4 of the
duplication is a mutant. The anti-apoptitic (apoptosis is programmed cell
death) gene family bcl-2, contains the neutrophil-specific A1 genes. In mice,
four A1 genes, A1-a, -b, -c and -d have been cloned and sequenced. They were
found to be generated by gene duplication, with one gene, A1-c, containing a
1 bp insertion that results in an aberrant, truncated protein (Multiple gene
duplication and expression of mouse bcl-2-related genes, A1. Hatakeyama S,
Hamasaki A, Negishi I, Loh DY, Sendo F, Nakayama K, Nakayama K Int Immunol
1998 May;10(5):631-7 ).
Sometimes even when a duplicated gene is mutated the mutation itself does not
change the phenotype; the mutant gene must be duplicated in order for a
different function to arise. Mutations in MET tyrosine kinase genes are found
in sporadic and hereditary papillary renal cell carcinomas. The necessity for
duplicated mutant MET alleles to generate the disease state was shown in
tumors isolated from members of two families with hereditary papillary renal
tumors and from one patient with multiple, bilateral renal cell tumors but
with no family history (see; Duplication and overexpression of the mutant
allele of the MET proto-oncogene in multiple hereditary papillary renal cell
tumours. Fischer J, Palmedo G, von Knobloch R, Bugert P, Prayer-Galetti T,
Pagano F, Kovacs G. Oncogene 1998 Aug 13;17(6):733-9).
Sometimes this kind of dis-regulation has a devastating and tragic effect on
the individual who carries the gene(s). For example, a germline duplication
of chromosome 2p, 46, XY, der(13)t(2;13(p23;q34) had fatal consequences for a
child (Germline duplication of chromosome 2p and neuroblastoma. Patel JS,
Pearson J, Willatt L, Andrews T, Beach R, Green A J Med Genet 1997
Nov;34(11):949-51). Duplication in the human flt3 receptor gene (FLT3) can be
found in some 17% of patients presenting acute myelogenous leukemia and in 8%
of patients presenting myelodysplastic syndrome and AML with trilineage
myelodysplasia (see Tandem duplications of the FLT3 receptor gene are
associated with leukemic transformation of myelodysplasia. Horiike S, Yokota
S, Nakao M, Iwai T, Sasai Y, Kaneko H, Taniwaki M, Kashima K, Fujii H, Abe T,
Misawa S. Leukemia 1997 Sep;11(9):1442-6)
In the lab, biologists can cause an increase in information content of a
genome by gene duplication by the use of dominant-negative mutants. With the
use of dominant-negative mutants one can inhibit the function of the
wild-type gene with a mutant version of the same gene is either overproduced
or otherwise dis-regulated (for an overview see; Functional inativation of
genes by dominant negative mutations. Herskowitz, I Nature 1987 Sept.
17;329:219-222.) In one example of this technique Smith and colleagues
demostrated the effects of mutant gene dosage on the activity of the family
of transcription factors called GATA that are involved in the differentiation
of erythrocytes and T lymphocytes (GATA-3 dominant negative mutant.
Functional redundancy of the T cell receptor alpha and beta enhancers. Smith
VM, Lee PP, Szychowski S, Winoto A J Biol Chem 1995 Jan 27;270(4):1515-20).
In this work they used transient overexpression of a mutant copy of the gene
to not only suppress wild-type GATA-3 transactivaction, it also suppressed
the activity of GATA-1 and GATA-2. Dominant -negative mutant can also be
used as probes to help in our understanding of the genetic components of
development. In Drosophila, the development of photoreceptors and nonneuronal
pigment cells is partly controlled by epidermal growth factor receptor (DER)
tyrosine kinase. In a paper by Matthew Freeman at the MRC in Cambridge
(Reiterative use of the EGF receptor triggers differentiation of all cell
types in the Drosophila eye. Freeman M Cell 1996 Nov 15;87(4):651-60), it was
shown that carefully controlling the timing of expression of a dominant
negative mutant form of DER elucidated the trigger function of the EGF
receptor in the differentitation of eye cells.
There are a great many more examples of gene duplication and increase in
information. It is, in fact, patently obvious. Unless, of course, you define
information in a way that no scientist does.
MEC
Mark O'Leary
writes:
>
> "Polyploidy" is the spontaneous doubling (or tripling or quadrupling)
of
> chromosomes. Autopolyploidy occurs in a single species; even more
common
> is allopolyploidy, in which the spontaneous doubling of chromosomes
occurs
> after the hybridization of two different species. Polyploidy is
an
plants
[snip]
> Two observations are in order: (1) Polyploidy is merely the duplication
of
> existing chromosomes. No new genes are introduced. To call this
an
> increase in information is analogous to saying that we increase
the
> information in a book by obtaining a second copy of the same
book.
I would simply remind people that these "books" are continually
being
recopied by hand, by absent-minded monks. With one copy, any
changes
accidentally introduced by Brother Albert could destroy the sense of
the
text. With two copies, the mangled sentence that brother Albert copied
can
be made sense of by reference to Brother Brian's copy - it's unlikely
they'd
both make mistakes at the same point. If Albert keeps making mistakes
in
copying the same sentence, it may eventually come to make sense again,
but
saying something completely new: so then we'll have the new sentence and
the
old one in Brian's
copies.
Not only that, but twice as many people can be reading these books at
once!
Or rather, being
translated:
Duplication of vital genes means that one copy is "free" to mutate, since
a
valid copy is still available to keep the organism viable. In this way,
new
variants of these "vital" genes can arise by the *accumulation* of
mutational
steps that in themselves would not be viable. Also, polyploidy creates
gene
dosage effects - proteins that do not have a selectable effect at low
dosage
may have an influence on the plant at higher dosage (for example,
minor
enzymes involved in secondary metabolism might turn out to poison
insects
that attack the plant, at higher
dosage).
[snip]
> The polyploid orchid species referred to above is bigger than
the
> parent species because it has extra copies of genes from which to make
> gene products, not because any new features are
I find this trite. Size is in itself a genetically-regulated thing. Are
you
suggesting that multiple sex-chromosome duplication as observed in
humans
results in bigger sexual
structures!?
> According to a standard textbook in evolutionary biology:
> polyploidy may confer new physiological and ecological capabilities,
it
> does not, as far as we know, confer major new morphological
characteristics
> such as differences in the structure of flowers or frtuis. Thus
polyploidy
> does not cause the evolution of new genera or other higher taxa."
(Douglas
> Futuyma, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 3rd edition. Sinauer,
1998)
The above is perfectly true - BUT once a polyploidy event has occurred,
the
spectrum of mutations that can be undergone and survived by the
target
species is vastly increased. Firstly, there is more DNA per cell that
may
mutate, enhancing the odds that a mutation may occur in a coding region
of a
gene, and secondly there are more duplicates of functional genes, such
that
one copy may mutate into a new role *whilst the old function is still
being
fulfilled by the duplicate copy of the
gene*.
Polyploidy *on its own* does not represent the instant increase in
the
information content of the genome, but it *does* represent the adding of
a
large number of "blank pages" to the "book", on which the
organism's
environment can write new information through the usual
mutational
processes at reduced risk of inducing a fatal/deleterious
mutation.
And, as you note, polyploidy does induce reproductive isolation. So,
a
population that is reproductively isolated, and subject to increased
chance
of mutational events with reduced risk of deleterious mutation might be
said
to be on a "fast track" to
speciation.
M.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mark O'Leary, | Voice: +44 (0161)
2756110
Network Support Officer, | Email:
Mark.O'Le...@mcc.ac.uk
Manchester Computing, UK | or:
ma...@mcc.ac.uk
Tim Ikeda
w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com says...
[some interesting sections removed...]
> with casual use of the term "information" by many
> anti-evolutionists. Those anti-evolutionists would like to
> assert that point mutations never increase information, but
> they also assert that information can decrease thereby. Now,
> consider an organism that has a point mutation that causes the
> protein product to be non-functional. Some have made
> arguments that this kind of situation clearly represents a
> *decrease* in information. But in subsequent offspring, a
> point mutation can restore function, and thus must be an
> *increase* in information from the parent's state. If one
> accepts that the first change represents a decrease, one is
> obliged to recognize that the second change represents an
> increase. The original anti-evolutionary assertion is false.
There have been some truely excellent rebuttals to Buckna's
claims (to be fair, we can't credit David as the originator of
these claims -- the most recent source of these confused ideas
is Lee Spetner: Yes, Lee "archaeopteryx is a fake" Spetner).
Someone posted a series of articles about information and
Lee Spetner's book on the ASA evolution server last September.
I posted a ser of replies questioning how Spetner used various
and changeable definitions of "information" in his claims. As
others have noted in this thread it appears that different
metrics are being used and compared without regard to the
appropriate contexts. That's a big no-no.
For example, in the case of mutations resulting in antibiotic
resistance, it is claimed that the mutations cause a loss of
information because they reduce the ability of the ribosome
(or a ribosomal factor) to bind an inhibitor. This seems odd
because it assumes that susceptibility to such antibiotics is
the "preferred" state of a cell. Secondly it sounds odd because
one could turn the claim around and state that the ribosome
has actually acquired increased specificity because it can now
discriminate against the antibiotic -- Note that the ability to
differentiate between molecules is one metric of specificity that
Spetner uses (Conveniently forgot in this case, however).
Interestingly enough, increasing the binding specificity of an
target enzyme is one well defined mode of acquiring antibiotic
resistance.
Ok, some maybe Spetner's supporters are willing to drop the
binding specificity metric of "information"; perhaps other
measures work better... Oh, but these options don't always
work either. Both the Shannon-style and "compressibility" or
algorithmic coding measures of "information" would score
gene duplications and point mutations in diploids as having
higher information content. Perhaps not double the content, but
still an increase of some degree. [Aside: Wesker3 claims to be
using Shannon-style measures of information, but as others have
noted, that can't possibly jibe with what he's claimed. Buckna
apparently can spell "Shannon", but so far has not volunteered
to take up Wesker3's mathematical slack.]
Hmm... Any other measures of information that can't increase by
mutation? How about relative genomic content? Nope. Number of
genes per cell? Nope. Changes in regulatory networks? Nope. The
acquisition of new functions or other functional measures? Nope.
Well gosh, each of these metrics, when used separately, don't
seem to work all that well in demonstrating that mutations cannot
increase "information". Maybe if we mix 'n match them in different
contexts indiscriminantly... Ah, now that works. Now we can present
a moving target -- If we swap metrics, we can never be pinned down!
Anyway, here are some previous comments I've had about "Spetnerian
measures of information" back in September and October.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0063.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199810/0139.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0465.html
Regards,
Tim "I've got a shiny Ph.D. too!" Ikeda
Rich Daniel
[...]
> Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By Chance!", as
> All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out
> to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it...
I'd just like to point out that Lee Spetner is a physicist (PhD from MIT in
1950), not a microbiologist. How could he possibly be familiar enough with
the literature to be certain that all point mutations that have been
studied reduce information?
His credentials in information theory appear to be a lot better. He has
taught computer science and communication theory, and has published at
least the following articles:
Information Transmission in Evolution. IEEE Transactions in Information
Theory, vol IT-14 (1968):3-6
Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness. Nature, vol 226 (1970): 948-949.
(My source for the above is _Science in the Light of the Torah_.)
I don't have easy access to either Nature or IEEE Transactions that far
back. Would someone care to look them up and type in an abstract? I'd
also be interested in the rebuttals that would presumably follow articles
critical of evolution in those venues.
Rich Daniel rwda...@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
Stephen Watson
Publications by Lee Spetner:
>Information Transmission in Evolution. IEEE Transactions in Information
>Theory, vol IT-14 (1968):3-6
>
>Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness. Nature, vol 226 (1970): 948-949.
>
>(My source for the above is _Science in the Light of the Torah_.)
>
>I don't have easy access to either Nature or IEEE Transactions that far
>back. Would someone care to look them up and type in an abstract? I'd
>also be interested in the rebuttals that would presumably follow articles
>critical of evolution in those venues.
In Nature, maybe. But IEEE Transactions is aimed at....engineers ;-).
--
## Steve Watson # swa...@nortel.ca # Nortel Networks ## Ottawa, Ont. Canada ##
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not Nortel's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|In article <75e05a$iuh$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
| mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
|
|> An obvious example of this supposedly unanswerable question is the
|>acquiring of resistance to antibiotics, and, also, additional genetic
|>modifications to allow this resistance to occur in bacteria without
|>great disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics. Experiments have been
|>performed on clonal bacteria which did not have genes for resistance to
|>antibiotics, and then some subsequently acquired it through mutation,
|>and
|>those mutants became abundant to the exclusion of non-resistant ones due
|>to selection. It is plain old evolution by mutation, inheritance, and
|>natural selection. I only wish it were not so easy to find an example
|>where organisms have evolved new genetic information to circumvent
|>techniques humans have developed to control them.
|
|
|Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By
|Chance!", as well as some other examples of mutations.
|
|What follows is an excerpt from the discussion of antibiotic resistance
|in microorganisms, and insecticide resistance in insects (pp. 138-144).
|In the book, this excerpt was preceded by a discussion showing that the
|more specific is a message (or an enzyme) the greater the information
|content, and vice versa.
Here was the original question:
"[Dawkins] can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the
genome."
So, rather than an increase in information being a "new" bit of
genetic material, perhaps for a feature that was not present in the
organism before, it now has to be a feature with greater specificity,
whatever that means (explained below, I see)? This sounds like an
exercise in deciding what constitutes "increased information", which may
be half the problem here -- that the question was formulated poorly or, at
least, incompletely. In such a circumstance, it might be wise to either
not answer it or to ask the poser what, exactly, they mean by an "increase
in information in the genome".
By Spetner's definition, apparently such things do not exist. I'm
dubious. Even if accepted, this does not negate the fact that through
mutation and natural selection, bacteria have been shown to obtain new
features that are crucial to their survival. Even if this is supposedly
"decrease in information in the genome", something I am dubious of, it is
still evolution, and it is still obviously beneficial. Apparently
beneficial mutations do happen.
Spetner also makes no mention of what can happen with gene
duplication, which can insert multiple copies of the same gene (an
"increase of information" or not?), or even more than just genes (e.g.,
whole chromosomes), and which can then subsequently change independently.
Some duplications are known to be beneficial (Wesley mentioned polyploidy
in some plants as an empirical example); but I suppose then the issue
would become whether or not this is truly beneficial for the long term, or
whether or not "copies" of pre-existing material truly constitute an
"increase in information" by whatever definition Spetner uses in that
circumstance. Something tells me that the definition is crafted to
eliminate these instances where the total amount of genetic material is
indeed larger, by *some* measures, and the organism benefits from it too.
|The excerpt follows:
|
|========================================================================
|=
|All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
|out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. Let's
|examine what's known about the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics and
|of insects to pesticides.
|Some bacteria have built into them at the outset a resistance to some
|antibiotics. The resistance comes from an enzyme that alters the drug to
|make it inactive.
Yes, some already have it, but it is my understanding that some of
the ones that have been experimented with have no such resistance, making
this entire passage irrelevant.
|This type of resistance does not build up through
|mutation. J. Davies and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin
|expressed the opinion that the purpose of the enzyme may not be to offer
|resistance to the drug. They did not profess to know its primary purpose,
|but they considered it to be directed toward attacking small molecules
|involved in some other, but so far unknown, cell function [Davies et al.
|1971]. In their opinion, drug resistance in these cases may be only
|fortuitous. On the other hand, our commercial antibiotics are the natural
|products of certain fungi and bacteria [Aharonowitz and Cohen 1981]. One
|might therefore expect that some bacteria would be endowed with an enzyme
|providing resistance to them. Bacteria that are not resistant can become
|resistant through infection by a
|virus that carries the gene for resistance. The virus may have picked up
|the gene from a naturally resistant bacterium. Also, bacteria can be
|deliberately made resistant by artificially introducing into their DNA
|the gene encoding the enzyme. Scientists today can transfer sections of
|DNA from one organism to another. The gaining of antibiotic resistance in
|this way is not an example of how evolution might add information.
Yes, but that is the point -- these methods for introducting
resistance genes were considered early on in such experiments. They were
made moot by using genetically identical bacterial colonies that could be
shown *not* to have resistance in the first place. These were then
exposed to mutating processes (ultraviolet light, if I recall correctly)
and exposed to antibiotics to eliminate the ones that were not resistant.
Some had acquired resistance via point mutations.
|The genome of
|the bacterium that acquired the resistance does indeed gain information.
|But there is no gain for life as a whole. The resistant gene already
|existed in some other bacterium or virus.
From everything I have read, yes, this happens sometimes, but the
experiment can be set up to eliminate this possibility, and point
mutations -- rather than transfer of pre-existing genetic material from
other bacteria or via virii -- that confer resistance have been
empirically observed. Spetner goes on to effectively say that these
mutations are not an "increase in information", although they are
obviously beneficial mutations that spread through a population via
natural selection.
|But some bacteria can mutate to become resistant to a drug to which it
|had been sensitive. In these cases the function is new. Could such a
|mutation demonstrate neo-Darwinian evolution?
|Scientists have studied how streptomycin and other mycin drugs keep
|bacteria from growing, and how a point mutation makes bacteria resistant
|tothe drug [Davies et al. 1971, Davies and Nomura 1972].
Yes. Exactly. Which makes you wonder why Spetner talked about
all the rest, because this mechanism is all that matters.
|They found that a
|molecule of the drug attaches to a matching site on a ribosome of the
|bacterium and interferes with its making of protein, as shown in Fig.
|5.3. With the drug molecule attached, the ribosome is unable to put the
|right amino acids together when it makes protein. It makes the wrong
|proteins. It makes proteins that don't work. The bacterium then can't
|grow, can't divide, and can't propagate.
|The ribosomes of mammals don't have the site at which the mycin drugs can
|attach, so the drugs can't harm them. Because the mycins can stop
|bacterial growth without harming the host, they make useful antibiotics.
Yes.
|A point mutation makes the bacterium resistant to streptomycin by losing
|information.
But why is this "losing information"?
It is peripheral to the original question, but is relevant to the
broader question: why does it *matter* if it is losing information if it
is truly a beneficial mutation to lose information in some circumstances?
It is still evolution by natural selection.
|If a mutation in the bacterium should happen to change the
|ribosome site where the streptomycin attaches, the drug will no longer
|have a place to which it can attach. Fig. 5.4 shows schematically how a
|change in the matching site on the ribosome can prevent a streptomycin
|molecule from fitting onto the ribosome and interfering with its
|operation. The drug
|molecule cannot attach to the ribosome, so it cannot interfere with its
|making of protein, and the bacterium becomes resistant.
|You can see from Fig. 5.4 that the change could be in several different
|places on the matching site and still grant resistance to the bacterium.
|Any one of several changes in the attachment site on the ribosomal
|protein is enough to spoil its match with the mycin. That means that a
|change in
|any one of several DNA nucleotides in the corresponding gene can confer
|resistance on the bacterium. Several different mutations in bacteria have
|indeed been found to result in streptomycin resistance [Gartner & Orias
|1966].
Yes. I am not familiar with all the details, but the difference
in ribosome function is what I remember as the reason why antibiotics work
against bacteria but don't adversely effect the host.
|We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the
|ribosome protein, and that means losing genetic information.
I don't get it. Why is "specificity of the ribosome protein"
"losing genetic information"? Why does it matter if it is beneficial to
lose information in this case?
Incidentally, does Spetner talk at all about some of the other
mutations that are now known to occur with antibiotic resistance that
improve survival in the absence of antibiotics in the environment? I
don't know what the nature of those mutations are, but it is my guess that
they might return some of the "specificity" that Spetner considers a "loss
of information", in which case they would be the type of example you are
looking for. Unfortunately, I do not know of any of the details for these
ones, I just know they exist.
|This loss of
|information leads to a loss of sensitivity to the drug and hence to
|resistance. Since the information loss is in the gene, the effect is
|heritable, and a whole strain of resistant bacteria can arise from the
|mutation.
|Although such a mutation can have selective value, it decreases rather
|than increases the genetic information. It therefore cannot be typical of
|mutations that are supposed to help form small steps that make up
|macroevolution. Those steps must, on the average,
Why "on the average"? Maybe most of them do not. Maybe it is
only the occasional gene duplication that adds a great amount of new
information to the genome, assuming that gene duplication is not
eliminated by Spetner as an "increase of information" too.
|add information. Even
|though resistance is gained, it's gained not by adding something, but by
|losing it. Rather than say that the bacterium gained resistance to the
|antibiotic, we would be more correct to say that it lost its sensitivity
|to it.
It sounds more like an exercise in deciding if the glass is half
full or half empty. The fact remains: beneficial mutations that become
common in populations of living organisms due to natural selection are
undeniable, whether or not they constitute "loss of information". It is
still evolution, even if you choose to dismiss it as something
significant.
Assuming this kind of antibiotic resistance is a "loss of
information", and that it therefore is not an answer to the exact question
that was posed to Dawkins, then I would offer "gene duplication", and its
subsequent modifiation, as an answer. Does Spetner talk about it?
|It lost information.
|The NDT is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built
|up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and
|a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological
|differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information
|than does the bacterial genome.
Yes, *much* more.
|Information cannot be built up by mutations
|that lose it.
Yes. But it can highly modify it to great benefit. Can we at
least agree that *is* demonstrated by these examples?
Nobody said that point mutations are the only type of mutations
that occur in genomes anyway, and what about the insertion of genetic
material by virii and other means that Spetner just mentioned? They
certainly increase information on an *organismal* level, even if they are
derived from other life. And then there is gene duplication. Why, in
combination (e.g., wholesale duplication + point mutations that "lose
information", but to some benefit) might work rather well. I wonder if
some process might incorporate all of these together?
|A business can't make money by losing it a little at a time.
But it can be made greatly more efficient by trimming its costs,
and, more importantly, a business is *not* limited to trimming costs to
make ends meet. Neither is evolution.
[another examples of "losing sensitivity" to pesticides in insects]
|long as the drug is present, the organism has to be resistant to survive,
|even at the price of being less fit in another way. But when the drug is
|removed, the nonresistant type is again more adaptive.
|A mutation in bacteria that makes it resistant to streptomycin reduces
|the specificity of a protein in the ribosome. When the ribosome becomes
|less specific, its performance is degraded.
Yes. Unfortunately, bacteria have not stopped there. Some have
more recently acquired additional mutations that return almost all of the
prior performance. I suppose this could be phrased as a loss of
sensitivity for the absence of antibiotic :-) :-) I'm not familiar with
what exact changes occur in the bacteria to accomplish this (maybe it is
more things that can be characterised as "loss of information"), but it is
definitely longer true to say that performance must be inhibited in the
absence of antibiotics, because some bacteria are not inhibited compared
to their non-resistant bretheren. I wish it were not true, because there
were hopes that if the use of certain antibiotics was reduced, the
non-resistant types of bacteria would shortly become much more abundant
again. Apparently not.
|T. K. Gartner and E. Orias from the
|University of California in Santa Barbara reported some time ago that the
|mutations that make bacteria resistant to streptomycin degrade their
|ribosomes [Gartner and Orias 1966]. The mutation makes the ribosome
|slower than normal in translating some of the RNA codons into protein.
|Degrading side effects have also been noted in insects that have become
|resistant to insecticides. M. W. Rowland from the Rothamsted Experimental
|Station in Hertfordshire, England has reported that mosquitoes that have
|become resistant to dieldrin are less active and slower to respond to
|stimuli than are other insects [Rowland 1987]. Their resistance to the
|insecticide is thus bought at the price of a more sluggish nervous
|system.
Which only shows the importance of environment to determining what
constitutes "beneficial". The environment does not have to remain static
either.
|The information loss on the molecular level then appears as a loss in the
|performance of the insect.
Depending upon the environment, which is the whole point.
|========================================================================
|> Also take a look at the August 1st issue of _New_Scientist_, p.14,
|>which talks about how bacteria can be coaxed into evolving the ability
|>to incorporate highly unusual amino acids into their biological systems.
|>The situation is quite artificial, but the process has definitely added
|>new information of some kind to the biological system.
|
|It added new information in this instance because it was "coaxed" on, and
|as McCrae admits, the situation "is quite artificial".
Sigh. Read the article. It has to be artificial, because
fluorine-bearing amino acids aren't exactly common in the natural
environment. The *situation* is artificial. That does not make the
*process* of mutation and natural selection artificial. The bacteria did
it, not the humans. The humans just put them into a challenging
situation, and the bacteria evolved a way to cope with it, on their own.
There is no reason to expect that the same thing would not happen when
natural environments change.
|Scientists can also graft on new information.
Yes, but that is not what happened here.
|But if that is the only way they can see it becoming part
|of the genome, I wonder what or who they think was involved in the
|coaxing/grafting mechanism when that first cell was waiting to evolve?
[sarcasm]
Yes, there is no point in scientists doing any experiments,
because all must become evidence for "design", right?
[end sarcasm]
David, these bacteria were not "designed" to metabolize
fluorine-bearing amino acids. They figured it out on their own. Maybe
that is what the designer of life on Earth did too, perhaps?
|Articles by Dr. David N. Menton:
|
|A Vast Number of Lucky Mutations Made Us
|http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm
|
|Evidences From Biology
|http://www.gennet.org/BIOLOGY.htm
|
|> Look, I haven't seen the video, all I have seen are explanations
|>of it, but I don't see the point. Even if I assume your premise is
|>entirely valid, and that Dawkin's really was stumped (something I doubt,
|>but will grant for the sake of the argument), big deal. His supposed
|>failure is irrelevant to the scientific issue. I know of examples "of
|>an evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new
|>functional information at the genetic level",
|
|What McCrae
MacRae.
|needs to do is list some examples that aren't "coaxed" or in
|an artificial situation.
The only "coaxing" was not to expose them to *pure*
fluorine-bearing animo-acid mixtures, and to give them appropriate
conditions for growth. If this is "coaxing", then all experiments that
have ever been done with bacteria are "coaxed", so the exercise is
pointless.
In a natural situation, it becomes very difficult to determine the
genetic condition of the entire population from some starting point, and
confirm that a particular genetic feature is completely absent at the
beginning. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is much more
challenging to document. An example that may be relevant is the origin of
corn from teosinte, but then, I suppose it is negated by the fact that
humans were involved in the selection process, which seems pretty
arbitrary given that they were not splicing genes or doing anything that
wasn't possible naturally.
|>so I could care less what
|>Dawkins did or did not present in reply.
|
|McCrae is doing what is done by many Darwinists
Apparently. And you are doing what is done by many attackers of
conventional science -- characterising the critique instead of addressing
the point. I do that too sometimes.
|--when the first attack
|fails (eg. the attack on Gillian Brown's film), then go to your second
|line of defense, which is some variation of "It really doesn't matter
|anyway; that's a stupid question to ask."
My point here has nothing to do with "stupid questions", it has to
do with authority figures and how to interpret non-answers by them.
Dawkins' opinion does not determine ultimate reality, and I am quite
capable of formulating my own opinion. If Dawkins' did not answer, for
whatever reason, my opinion is not swayed at all on the issue of whether
or not beneficial mutations of a particular flavour ("increasing
information") occur. I have independent information. If Dawkins'
contributes nothing, then how on Earth does that influence the issue
either way? It is your "authority" and "negative evidence" logic that I
was critiquing here. Even if I accept your story about the situation, how
does Dawkins' failure to answer translate into evidence there is no answer
at all? At best, it means he doesn't know, or couldn't remember, neither
of which are crimes for scientists, last time I checked, and neither of
which indicate the lack of a scientific answer entirely, no matter how
authoritative someone is on the subject of the question. I consider the
issue of why Dawkins did not answer to be rather moot, given that I know
at least some plausible answers to the question, and it is obvious the
question was not particularly well formulated in the first place, given
the definition of "information" employed by people like Spetner isn't
exactly obvious.
|> It is like asking whether somebody knows why the sky is blue.
|>Even if they do not know, and should know, it does not change the fact
|>that an answer does exist. I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
|>supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
|>hilarious if it were not so pathetic. It is a classic example of the
|>logic employed by some Biblical-literalist creationists all the time to
|>find "evidence" of "creation" in what is supposedly absent, often when
|>it is not actually absent anyway (the standard misrepresentations of
|>punctuated equilibrium and supposedly absent transitional fossils come
|>to mind as an example -- transitions between species *are* known, even
|>if punctuated equilibrium did claim there were none, which it doesn't
|>anyway).
|
|
|Ah, yes, good ol' punctuated equilibrium, which must be the only theory
|put forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific, but
|then explains why evidence for it cannot be found.
|
|I thought a good theory was based on evidence, not a _lack_ of evidence.
You disappoint me. Yes, that is *exactly* the standard
misrepresentation I was talking about. Which is why this situation is so
ironic. You are assuming that Dawkins has no answer on the basis that he
did not answer, and, furthermore, because he is an authority that should
know, that no answer exists from conventional scientists at all. It is
the same kind of ridiculous extrapolation of negative evidence that you
accuse conventional scientists of making when they talk about punctuated
equilibrium. The ironic twist is that what you (and other
anti-evolutionary critics) claim punctuated equilibrium says is not what
punctuated equilibrium says. You have misunderstood it.
In reality, punctuated equilibrium only predicts that transitions
between species will be found rarely and in limited geographic areas,
because in many other areas, the first appearance of a species represents
a slightly later migration from the place where the species evolved.
Eldredge and Gould say many things in their original 1972 and 1977 papers
on the subject of punctuated equilibrium, but among the things they do not
say is that:
1) punctuated equilibrium is the only mode by which species originate;
2) that gradual transitions between species are unknown in the fossil
record;
3) that no transitions between species should be found; and,
4) that punctuated equilibrium predicts they never will be found.
Even in their original papers, Eldredge and Gould present examples
of gradational change in fossils from the fossil record. Their only
assertion is that such continuous morphological change is uncommon, not
non-existent. They specifically state that their model is not meant to be
exclusive of gradual change. Furthermore, they say that even if a
punctuated-equilibrium-style pattern of relative stasis and more rapid
change does occur, transitional fossils between species will be rarely
preserved, not non-existent. They can be found if the
geographically-limited area where the speciation occurred can be found,
and if the record is detailed enough at that time and location. This is
not just a hypothetical never-never land that conveniently does not exist,
such locations *have* been found. For example:
Spencer-Cervato, C. and Thierstein, H.R., 1997. First appearance of
_Globorotalia_truncatulinoides_: cladogenesis and immigration. Marine
Micropaleontology, v.30, p.267-291.
Williamson, P.G., 1981. Palaeontological documentation of speciation in
Cenozoic molluscs from Turkana Basin. Nature, v.293, p.437-443.
MacLeod, N., 1991. Punctuated anagenesis and the importance of
stratigraphy to paleobiology. Paleobiology, v.17, no.2, p.167-188.
Nehm, R.H. and Geary, D.H., 1994. A gradual morphologic transition during
a rapid speciation event in marginellid gastropods (Neogene: Dominican
Republic). Journal of Paleontology, v.68, no.4, p.787-795.
Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic
evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and
_Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological
Society of London, v.154, p.295-302.
If punctuated equilibrium really predicted what you and similar
critics claim, then it would simply be wrong, because transitions between
fossil species are known. In reality, you are misrepresenting both the
theory and the evidence.
|In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that
|duplicated genes acquired different functions during an experiment or
|series of experiments?
That, I do not know. But then, my failures in knowledge aren't
evidence of lack of such experiments. Feel free to interpret otherwise.
It would be consistent logic.
|David Buckna
|http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4881/topten.html
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Robert Gotschall
>
>
>
>
> Maff91 implies that the practical applications of specific evolutionary
> theories can be used to justify the validity of the whole framework of
> common descent. I think he is sadly mistaken.
>
> Biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and other high tech companies employ
> theories within the evolutionary framework which can be tested
> rigorously through repeatable experiments. It is from the repeatability
> that practical value is often derived. If repeatable empirical
> observations is the "sword" over the validity of the claim that atom
> became man then all of the critical transitions conjectured but never
> observed and not empirically testable must be eliminated. But heck you
> would be left with a model close to the creation science model.
>
> If practical application and repeatable experiments are the quide you
> should eliminate as valid all of the critical transitions conjectured to
> be true between self-replicating molecule and man. But I
> forgot...oops...even the self-replicating molecule must be assumed into
> existence because modern science has so far refuted that such a molecule
> could ever be produced naturalistically assuming all sorts of
> appropriate initial conditions on an earth formed 4.6 billion years
> ago. Ain't that a kick in the pants...
>
Indeed, many intermediate steps between actual repeatable observations
are more or less assumed. Because of this you feel free to discount
these theories and all their attendant applications, such as the device
through which you barrage the rest of us here, in favor of -your- theory
you expect us to except with no evidence whatever.
> Secular skeptics are only skeptical of that which contradicts their
> beliefs. But that sounds like the criticism maff91 has leveled at
> creationists. Naw...couldn't be?
BTW, there's no Santa Clause either.
Merry Christmas.
>
>
> [deletia]
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
--
Robert Gotschall -Disclaimer? I don't need no stinking disclaimer-
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> [snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
>
> > Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
> > genetic information increase.
>
> <1998122106...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> entitled:
> "Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re: Skeptics choke on frog)"
> For the explanation, he used Shannon's definition of information.
No, I checked that post. What he explained was why polyploid genomes have
more information. He did not explain why more robustness and larger size
indicate a genetic information increase. It is my understanding that there
exist organisms smaller than us but with more genetic information.
Back to the drawing board, boys!
Dave Greene
rpa...@spot.colorado.edu
> 1950), not a microbiologist. How could he possibly be familiar enough with
> the literature to be certain that all point mutations that have been
> studied reduce information?
>
> His credentials in information theory appear to be a lot better. He has
> taught computer science and communication theory, and has published at
> least the following articles:
>
> Theory, vol IT-14 (1968):3-6
>
> Natural Selection versus Gene Uniqueness. Nature, vol 226 (1970): 948-949.
>
> (My source for the above is _Science in the Light of the Torah_.)
>
> I don't have easy access to either Nature or IEEE Transactions that far
> back. Would someone care to look them up and type in an abstract? I'd
> also be interested in the rebuttals that would presumably follow articles
> critical of evolution in those venues.
I looked up the _Nature_ article. It's a "Letter" (i.e. a short
communication) so it has no Abstract. It's a comment on a previous
Letter by John Maynard Smith:
"Natural Selection and the Concept of a Protein Space",
_Nature_ _225_, 563-564 (1970)
which, in turn, is a comment on a Letter by one Frank B. Salisbury:
"Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene",
_Nature_ _224_, 342-343 (1969).
Salisbury's address is the Plant Science Department at Utah State
University, Maynard Smith writes from the School of Biological
Sciences at the University of Sussex, and Spetner from the Applied
Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins. Very briefly, Salisbury worries about
the ability of mutation+natural selection to produce functional
proteins on a sensible time scale, Maynard Smith presents a simple
mathematical model suggesting that the problem isn't so hard, and
Spetner criticizes Maynard Smith's model.
There are no followups to Spetner's letter in _Nature_. According
to _Science Citation Index_, Spetner's letter has been cited three
times: in 1971 by Salisbury in the American Biology Teacher, in
1976 by Y. M. Olenov in a Russian journal, and in 1989 by C. A.
Macken and A. S. Perelson in PNAS:
"Protein Evolution on Rugged Landscapes",
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. _86_, 6191-6195 (1989).
However this paper cites Spetner only in passing, being
mostly concerned with an extension of Maynard Smith's model.
------
Robert
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
"In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments?"
Not a single one of his examples (as written) provides evidence of "duplicated
genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments.
If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
definition indeed.
David Buckna
Boikat
>
> It's very clear that <mc...@ctiseattle.com> did not answer my question:
>
> genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments?"
>
> genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments.
>
> If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
> or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
> definition indeed.
The added "instruction" to "divide like crazy"
isn't a new instruction? It would appear to be an
addition to the information that's already there,
even if the "information" is in the form of
genetic instructions to 'turn off" whatever
inhibits wild growth to begin with. If not, then
the whole "increased/decreased" information must
be a red herring argument, since it all appears to
depend on what anyone wants to pick and choose as
an example of "increased information", along with
the definition of "information".
(Which is why I'd rather term it as a "change" in
information, rather than an "increase" or a
"decrease" of "information".)
Boikat
Wesley R. Elsberry
<daveg...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>theo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
DG> [snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
DG> Please explain why more robustness and larger size idicate a
DG> genetic information increase.
DC> He already did in this post:
DC> <1998122106...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>
DC>entitled: "Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re:
DC>Skeptics choke on frog)" For the explanation, he used
DC>Shannon's definition of information.
DG>No, I checked that post. What he explained was why
DG>polyploid genomes have more information. He did not
DG>explain why more robustness and larger size indicate a
DG>genetic information increase. It is my understanding that
DG>there exist organisms smaller than us but with more genetic
DG>information.
DG>Back to the drawing board, boys!
I wonder how Dave missed the following:
[Quote]
Because the morphology is *different* from the parent species,
we have established that the information content of the
daughter species is *different*. This difference is, as
Dr. Wells describes above, due to the *extra* copies of genes,
and thus *increased* (not *decreased*) information content of
the genome.
[End Quote - WR Elsberry]
It is the combination of the fact of a difference and the fact
of the genetic difference being due to polyploidy that leads
to a conclusion of increased genetic information in the
common-sense understanding of the term, not the particular
*properties* of the difference. That contrasts with
Shannon-style definitions, where it is unnecessary to show any
difference in phenotype to show increase in genetic
information due to polyploidy. (The cited post showed that
the example meets that criterion, too.) The example I
selected meets both the Shannon-style requirements and the
casual use of "information".
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"What's so great about the barrier reef\What's so fine about art"-O97s
theo...@my-dejanews.com
daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> theo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > daveg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > [snip post by Mr. Elsberry]
> >
> >
> > He already did in this post:
> > "Anti-evolutionists choke on information (was Re: Skeptics choke on frog)"
> > For the explanation, he used Shannon's definition of information.
>
> No, I checked that post. What he explained was why polyploid genomes have
> more information. He did not explain why more robustness and larger size
> indicate a genetic information increase.
Oh, I see; apparently I misunderstood what you were asking for. But I don't
think it was Wesley's point that merely robustness and larger size meant
information increase. The actual information increase comes from the
polyploidy. David Buckna's objection to this was that merely recopying
existant information (as polyploidy does) does not increase information.
I think it was Mr. Elsberry's point that there was more going on than just
having a few extra copes of each gene; that there was and actula physical,
selectable difference in the plant. In this sense, at the very least
information has changed, if not increased. I doubt that larger size in and
of itself indicates a necessary genetic information increase.
To be sure of what he meant, I hope Mr. Elsberry responds to this thread...
--
Daniel "Theophage" Clark
Director, EAC Snack Foods Division
http://www.azsunset.com/~drdan/eac.html
- Got Reason?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Tim Ikeda
mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca says...
[...big snip...]
> duplication, which can insert multiple copies of the same gene (an
> "increase of information" or not?), or even more than just genes (e.g.,
> whole chromosomes), and which can then subsequently change independently.
Spetner dismisses gene duplication on the basis that it copies previously
existing "information". As you note, that's a dubious conclusion.
Now, if one of those copies subsequently mutates which say, alters its
target function, that gets scored as a "loss of information" because:
A) It's lost some of its specificity for the original task (Either
because it binds its original substrate less well or because it
can now recognize new substrates - "specificity" can have different
measures)
or, if you can't make that argument stick...
B) We've lost part of the original sequence in the process.
What it boils down to is that Spetner is setting up his multiple
definitions of information in such a way that you'd have to create
a new sequence and a complex new function de novo and plop it into
an organism before it would register as an information increase.
Any sequential mechanism won't pass his tests (Given such criteria
I think it's rather amusing how so many sequences nest as though they
were generated by sequential mechanisms).
In fairness, Spetner does say that a mutation which increased
biological information might be possible -- at least in theory.
However, he does say that he doesn't know of such a case.
Interestingly, he doesn't spend much time (if any) speculating what
a "hypothetical" information-increasing mutation might look like. So
we're not left with a solid set of criteria if we go looking for
such an example.
[...]
> Some duplications are known to be beneficial (Wesley mentioned polyploidy
> in some plants as an empirical example); but I suppose then the issue
> would become whether or not this is truly beneficial for the long term, or
> whether or not "copies" of pre-existing material truly constitute an
> "increase in information" by whatever definition Spetner uses in that
> circumstance. Something tells me that the definition is crafted to
> eliminate these instances where the total amount of genetic material is
> indeed larger, by *some* measures, and the organism benefits from it too.
Correction: It's "definitions" (plural) not "definition". The definitions
used are hot-swapped when needed. That's the problem.
Big cut....
[...]
> Incidentally, does Spetner talk at all about some of the other
> mutations that are now known to occur with antibiotic resistance that
> improve survival in the absence of antibiotics in the environment? I
> don't know what the nature of those mutations are, but it is my guess that
> they might return some of the "specificity" that Spetner considers a "loss
> of information", in which case they would be the type of example you are
> looking for. Unfortunately, I do not know of any of the details for these
> ones, I just know they exist.
[...]
That example (published fairly recently) of bacteria which acquired
resistance to an antibiotic and subsequently acquired a means of
reducing the negative impact of the first mutation, is a good one.
It's not a terribly surprising result, either...
Given Buckna's wide-ranging reading habits, I'm surprised that
he missed it.
Consider the environment around an antibiotic-resistant bacterium
grown in the presence of the antibiotic. It may no longer be
competing with wild-type, sensitive strains, but it _is_ competing
with other resistant bacteria. If a bacterium acquires a second
mutation which moderates the effects of carrying antibiotic
resistance, guess what the new environment will look like...
Eventually a double-mutant bacterium will be competing against other
double-mutants. And so on... This is easily observed in chemostat
cultures (or any other form of continuous culture).
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tik...@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
Tim Ikeda
says...
[...]
> communication) so it has no Abstract.
A lot of the articles in _Nature_ from those days (1970) are very short.
Spetner's letter has one "data unit" (a graph), depicting the number
of "bits" that might be acquired in a genome. Interesting but only a
"back-of-the-envelope" kind of calculation. The real discussion was
about the relative "uniqueness" of gene sequences. The main thrust
of the three letter debate in _Nature_ was whether sequences were
so unique and that other, unusable sequences were so numerous that
you couldn't find a path to them through mutation and selection.
Salisbury's letter (which set forth this claim) was not terribly
interesting or convincing. John Maynard Smith wrote a rebuttal
suggesting that sequences could indeed be linked in evolutionarily-
accessible "protein space". In other words, the possible functional
sequences weren't so unique as to preclude evolution. Spetner's reply
didn't deny that information could be acquired. What he wanted to
claim was the following:
"In conclusion, after examining Smith's arguments, Salisbury's
contention still seems to stand: the concept of evolution by
random mutation and natural selection and the concept of the
uniqueness of the gene are apparently contradictory. Further,
if we should take the view that the gene is not unique, then
we have to begin revising our present ideas of the phylo-
genetic tree in order to remove the concepts of convergent
and parallel evolution."
(Concluding paragraph in Nature, 226(1970): 948-949)
The thrust being that if evolution could easily access numerous
intermediate forms, why should two similar functions which evolved
separately look anything alike (Spetner asks: "...why is it that
invertebrate and vertebrate eyes, which are supposed to have been
developed independently, seem to be so much alike?"). One
obvious answer is "functional constraints".
Clearly, Spetner's letter to _Nature_ has minimal impact on
the current discussion in this thread.
Shooty
It's very clear that <mc...@ctiseattle.com> did not answer my question:
"In closing, can anyone reference _any_ study that has shown that duplicated
genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments?"
Not a single one of his examples (as written) provides evidence of "duplicated
genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
experiments.
If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
definition indeed.
Well, information has changed, a new function has been added to the gene.
This is added information.
because we may see it as deleterious doesn't mean it hasn't been added.
Information is information.
Shooty
maff91
wrote:
>In article <367BBA69...@fast.net>, apa...@fast.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> Maff91 implies that the practical applications of specific evolutionary
>> theories can be used to justify the validity of the whole framework of
>> common descent. I think he is sadly mistaken.
Scientists and businesses don't think so.
>>
>> Biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and other high tech companies employ
>> theories within the evolutionary framework which can be tested
>> rigorously through repeatable experiments. It is from the repeatability
>> that practical value is often derived. If repeatable empirical
>> observations is the "sword" over the validity of the claim that atom
>> became man then all of the critical transitions conjectured but never
>> observed and not empirically testable must be eliminated. But heck you
>> would be left with a model close to the creation science model.
>>
>> If practical application and repeatable experiments are the quide you
>> should eliminate as valid all of the critical transitions conjectured to
>> be true between self-replicating molecule and man. But I
>> forgot...oops...even the self-replicating molecule must be assumed into
>> existence because modern science has so far refuted that such a molecule
>> could ever be produced naturalistically assuming all sorts of
>> appropriate initial conditions on an earth formed 4.6 billion years
>> ago. Ain't that a kick in the pants...
Nope. It only means that you haven't gone through all the references,
Pagano.
>>
>
>Indeed, many intermediate steps between actual repeatable observations
>are more or less assumed. Because of this you feel free to discount
>these theories and all their attendant applications, such as the device
>through which you barrage the rest of us here, in favor of -your- theory
>you expect us to except with no evidence whatever.
Why should anyone care whether you except (sic) or not?
>
>> Secular skeptics are only skeptical of that which contradicts their
>> beliefs. But that sounds like the criticism maff91 has leveled at
>> creationists. Naw...couldn't be?
So?
>
>BTW, there's no Santa Clause either.
Of course, there is. So is an IPU.
>
>Merry Christmas.
Happy Winter Solstice.
>>
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>>
>>
Andrew MacRae
|In article <75ojbt$ng0$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
|mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca says...
|[...big snip...]
|> Spetner also makes no mention of what can happen with gene
I should have said, "In the excerpt that David provides..." As I
said elsewhere in that post, I would not have been surprised if he negates
it somehow by proposing a definition of "increasing information" that
would mean gene duplication wasn't an "increase in information" either.
|> duplication, which can insert multiple copies of the same gene (an
|> "increase of information" or not?), or even more than just genes (e.g.,
|> whole chromosomes), and which can then subsequently change
|> independently.
|
|Spetner dismisses gene duplication on the basis that it copies previously
|existing "information".
If that were all there was to it, I could understand the point,
but does he ever consider the possibility that, oh, gene duplication *and*
the process he just described and dismissed (point mutation) might operate
together, simultaneously?
|As you note, that's a dubious conclusion.
If isolated only to perfect duplication of prior information, it
is a marginally okay conclusion (it certainly does not add as much "new"
information as the increase in size of the genome would suggest, and
theoretically it could be encoded quite simply), but there is no
practical, biological reason why a perfect duplication should occur,
particularly when he just finished talking about some of the other types
of mutations that can occur. It doesn't look applicable to the real,
messy, biological situation, at least as my limited understanding allows
me to consider the issue.
|Now, if one of those copies subsequently mutates which say, alters its
|target function, that gets scored as a "loss of information" because:
|A) It's lost some of its specificity for the original task (Either
| because it binds its original substrate less well or because it
| can now recognize new substrates - "specificity" can have different
| measures)
I don't quite understand -- at best, wouldn't it be a "loss of
specificity" for the original, but a potential gain of specificity for
some other? And doesn't this make the huge assumption that states with
greater specificity do not exist, or that multiple targets can not be
covered simultaneously if copies exist?
|or, if you can't make that argument stick...
|B) We've lost part of the original sequence in the process.
Oh, please. So, basically, adding anything at all is a "loss" of
the "original sequence"?
|What it boils down to is that Spetner is setting up his multiple
|definitions of information in such a way that you'd have to create
|a new sequence and a complex new function de novo and plop it into
|an organism before it would register as an information increase.
Okay, and, conveniently, that excludes what is observed to happen
in natural biological systems, despite the fact they somehow manage to
acquire new (or at least different) functions that are greatly beneficial
to their survival, eventhough they are a "loss of information".
I don't understand his objections. If the size of the genome
(independent of "information") can increase (e.g., via gene duplication),
and if the genome can be modified by "loss of information" point mutations
and other processes to the benefit of the organism, then, according to
Spetner's specialized definitions, apparently no "increase in information"
has occurred at each *step*, but can that be said about a process that
involves both? Is the end result of the operation of both processes still
a "loss of information"? I don't see how he can exclude this. Growing
the size of the genome is not an obvious biological problem, and tweaking
the genome to the benefit of the organism is not an obvious problem, so
where is the general problem?
|Any sequential mechanism won't pass his tests (Given such criteria
|I think it's rather amusing how so many sequences nest as though they
|were generated by sequential mechanisms).
|
|In fairness, Spetner does say that a mutation which increased
|biological information might be possible -- at least in theory.
Let me guess -- if some designer inserts a relevant gene?
|However, he does say that he doesn't know of such a case.
Fair enough. I don't know of such a case either. But that
probably says something about my lack of knowledge, rather than *a*
general lack of knowledge.
|Interestingly, he doesn't spend much time (if any) speculating what
|a "hypothetical" information-increasing mutation might look like. So
|we're not left with a solid set of criteria if we go looking for
|such an example.
Why would people go looking for one in nature when we know, by
definition, it could not exist? :-)
|[...]
|> Some duplications are known to be beneficial (Wesley mentioned
|> polyploidy in some plants as an empirical example); but I suppose then
|> the issue would become whether or not this is truly beneficial for the
|> long term, or
|> whether or not "copies" of pre-existing material truly constitute an
|> "increase in information" by whatever definition Spetner uses in that
|> circumstance. Something tells me that the definition is crafted to
|> eliminate these instances where the total amount of genetic material is
|> indeed larger, by *some* measures, and the organism benefits from it
|> too.
|
|Correction: It's "definitions" (plural) not "definition". The definitions
|used are hot-swapped when needed. That's the problem.
Icky.
|Big cut....
|[...]
|> Incidentally, does Spetner talk at all about some of the other
|> mutations that are now known to occur with antibiotic resistance that
|> improve survival in the absence of antibiotics in the environment? I
|> don't know what the nature of those mutations are, but it is my guess
|> that they might return some of the "specificity" that Spetner considers
|> a "loss of information", in which case they would be the type of
|> example you are looking for. Unfortunately, I do not know of any of
|> the details for these ones, I just know they exist.
|[...]
|That example (published fairly recently) of bacteria which acquired
|resistance to an antibiotic and subsequently acquired a means of
|reducing the negative impact of the first mutation, is a good one.
Potentially. But I don't know the genetic basis of it, and I am
not sure whether it is known yet. If it turned out to be insertion of
genes from some other bacteria, for example, I could see why someone like
David or Spetner would dispute it. However, it could potentially be a
*unique* combination of a point mutation and insertion of pre-existing
genes from other sources, at least for that organism. Again, in
combination, processes may actually break the prohibition Spetner seems to
establish, if the system is held to a consistent definition.
|It's not a terribly surprising result, either...
Gosh no, just a terribly unfortunate one, for very practical
reasons. Like I have said a couple of times, I only wish it were not so
easy to find potential examples. It would be nice in some ways if
evolution were not so effective.
|Given Buckna's wide-ranging reading habits, I'm surprised that
|he missed it.
|
|Consider the environment around an antibiotic-resistant bacterium
|grown in the presence of the antibiotic. It may no longer be
|competing with wild-type, sensitive strains, but it _is_ competing
|with other resistant bacteria. If a bacterium acquires a second
|mutation which moderates the effects of carrying antibiotic
|resistance, guess what the new environment will look like...
Unfortunately, yes, it isn't hard to imagine. I don't think it is
an exaggeration to say that applying antibiotics so liberally to
everything in our environment is a recipe for disaster. Humans may be
smart, but it is difficult to stay ahead of an evolutionary arms race with
organisms that evolve so quickly and effectively.
|Eventually a double-mutant bacterium will be competing against other
|double-mutants. And so on... This is easily observed in chemostat
|cultures (or any other form of continuous culture).
..
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
mc...@ctiseattle.com
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> It's very clear that <mc...@ctiseattle.com> did not answer my question:
>
> genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments?"
>
> genes [which] acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments.
>
> If mcoon's definition of information allows him to claim that a cancer-causing
> or other deleterious mutation "adds" information, then it's a very strange
> definition indeed.
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
It seems that Mr. Buckna does not have a clear idea of what oncogenesis
entails. Nor does he seem to have gotten the point of the examples I gave. In
each case the gene or genes were DUPLICATED, but one or more copy was a
mutant. In such a case the wild type gene is also expressed. In an organism
that possesses the wild type gene they have a....well....wild type phenotype.
With the addition of the mutant copy in each of these cases not only did they
have the wild type phenotype they also had the mutant phenotype.
No matter how you slice it, that is an increase in the information content of
the genome. It DOES NOT matter that the increase in information was
deleterious (except, of course, it matters ALOT to the people who suffered
from the consequences).
For example, in the paper I cited that discussed the effects of a mutant form
of MET tyrosine kinase receptor (Duplication and overexpression of the mutant
allele of the MET proto-oncogene in multiple hereditary papillary renal cell
tumours. Fischer J, Palmedo G, von Knobloch R, Bugert P, Prayer-Galetti T,
Pagano F, Kovacs G. Oncogene 1998 Aug 13;17(6):733-9) the patients suffering
from these kinds of sporadic and hereditary papillary renal cell carcinomas
had normal hepatocyte growth and development and liver architecture
indicating that the normal function of MET tyrosine kinase receptor in a
process of differentiation called 'branching morphogenesis' from scatter
factor responses was intact. That is they ALSO retain the wild type
phenotype. These people have two (or more) copies of the MET tyrosine kinase
receptor gene. They have the wild type function; normal hepatic architecture
(and other functions of this kind of receptor) AND they have an uncontrolled
harmful feature of neoplastic progression in which cancer cells invade
surrounding tissues, penetrate across the vascular walls, and eventually
disseminate throughout the body, giving rise to systemic metastases (for
those interested in the molecular mechanism behind the oncogensis induced by
mutant forms of MET see Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 24 Nov 1998
95;14379-14383.)
Further, I'm quite sure that Buckna has heard of Down's syndrome. These
people suffer from trisomy or an extra copy of one of the pair of DNA
molecules that makes up chromosome 21. That is they have EXTRA copies of
genes carried on chromosome 21. Is Mr. Buckna claiming that people with
Down's syndrome have no more information (or LESS ?!?!?) in their genomes
than siblings who don't have Down's? Now THAT would be "a very strange
definition (of information) indeed."
I'd like to say here that I'm a perfectly willing to accept alternative
definitions of what is meant by information. I do not presume to have a
complete understanding the term. I lurk on T.O. sometimes and for the most
part I see creationists use absurd and rather stupid arguments. This one
seems to be me to be just about the silliest argument they could make. Having
said that, however I will most definitely concede that it may be ME who is
not looking at this issue correctly and maybe it isn't as obvious as I think.
That is NOT to say that I buy Buckna's or Wesker3's arguments. Only that it
is such an elementary and conceptually simple thing that I may be missing
some more subtle nuances.
In the immortal words of Buffy the Vampire Killer; "Does the word 'duh' mean
anything to you?" ;-)
David C. Fritzinger
Example: Lamprey's only have a C3 gene (that looks a bit like the C4 gene in
other species)
Trout and other bony fish have both a C3 and a C4 gene (and have both the
classical and alternative complement pathways)
Most snakes have just a C3 gene in the alternative pathway
Cobras have a very nearly identical gene, Cobra Venom Factor, that is expressed
in the venom glands.
2 instances where gene duplication plus mutation yield increased complexity or
more information.
Case Closed!
Dave Fritzinger
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of Jonathan Sarfati of _Answers in Genesis_
> (Australia)
>
> ---
> In article <75ejjp$m2s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sha...@bethelsprings.com wrote:
>
> > How come I, a newcomer to this newsgroup and a real novice in most
> > scientific
> > areas, know very well that mutations can be beneficial and can add
> > information
> > and you don't?
> >
> Yes, you are a real novice as you say. Yes, mutations can be
> beneficial, but this is not the same as adding information. A
> beneficial mutation is simply one that benefits the organism. An
> example is wingless beetles on a desert island. But the mutation,
> although beneficial (the beetles are less likely to be blown into the
> sea), it stil removes the information for flight. Another example is
> creatures in caves with shrivelled eyes -- it's beneficial to lose the
> information for fully-formed eyes because it means they are less likely
> to be damaged, and the loss of sight doesn't matter where there is no
> light. Maybe you should read posts like 'Beetle Bloopers' at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=241 which should
> be simple enough even for a novice like you to understand.
>
> > Why would you act like you are part of some group stumping
> > evolutionists, which you call skeptics when in fact you are the
> > skeptic, when
> > you don't know something so basic as this, a foundation of the
> > evolutionary
> > theory?
> >
> Yes, a foundation lacking experimental support -- you have proven
> nothing to the contrary.
>
> > It makes me doubt your assertion that he was stumped. It is much more
> > likely
> > that he did not know how to give an answer that you and your skeptic
> > friends
> > would understand. In fact, your assertion that his answer was
> > unrelated to
> > the question proves this. He is an expert, by your own admission, and
> > you
> > know less about the subject than a novice like me.
> >
> In your dreams.
>
> > You are in no position to assert that his answer was unrelated.
> > Instead, you should say, "I was too
> > ignorant of the subject to understand his answer."
> >
> No, you are a novice, and it shows in your confusion between
> 'beneficial' and 'adding information'.
>
> > Actually, judging just from what you've written, the video is
> > deceptive.
> >
> Because you are a self-confessed novice who lacks the most basic
> understanding of information theory.
>
> > And it is proper to smear special creationists in general, because
> > your post is
> > typical of them.
> >
> Since when is smearing the Christian thing to do?
>
> > I am a creationist and a Christian
> >
> Theses words are so flexible these days. Even some people who deny the
> Resurrection and virginal conception claim to be Christian and even wear
> dog-collars.
>
> > who is actually part of a kingdom from God
> > that looks and behaves like the churches in Scripture, which is
> > incredibly
> > rare. I don't care to grant the terms creationist or Christian to the
> > special creation pseudo-science, because they cause the name of Christ
> > to be
> > blasphemed by their ignorance and stubbornness.
> >
> The name of Christ is blasphemed by the likes of you who claim to be
> 'Christian' yet disbelieve what Christ has taught, e.g. 'the Scripture
> cannot be broken' -- John 10:35, believe the words of Christ-haters like
> Dawkins, and believe the worst about Bible-believers.
>
> > > Since the Australian Skeptics clearly think the
> > end
> > > (combatting creationism) justifies the means
> > > (deception), how can anyone be sure that
> > anything
> > > else they write is not deception for the good of
> > > the 宑ause�
> >
> > I don't know the Australian Skeptics, but I do know that this is a
> > case of the
> > pot calling the kettle black, if indeed their is any deception in
> > their
> > practices.
> >
> Yes, there is, especially by their hero Ian Plimer, who brags about it.
>
> > > Of course, biblical creationists are committed
> > to
> > > belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which
> > > forbids bearing false witness;
> >
> > Their is no "of course" about it, except that biblical creationists,
> > so
> > called, claim to be bible followers. The evidence of their behavior,
> > and
> > yours, expressly denies that claim.
> >
> Not proven -- again you jump to conclusions based on ignorance, and have
> refused to follow Prov. 18:17.
>
> > Personally, I think they are a plant of
> > the devil to discredit the Bible and the name of Christ to all
> > thinking
> > persons.
> >
> I'm surprised you believe in the Devil, since you don't believe Christ's
> claim that man and woman were created 'at the beginning' (not by a
> process of death and suffering over billions of years) -- Mark 10:6; and
> deny His belief in the global Flood (Luke 17:26-27). And why are you
> worried about discrediting the Bible since you clearly don't believe
> Genesis?
>
> Jonathan Sarfati
Garrison Hilliard
Now, for all of you who think Buckna's of absolutely no use, here's proof
of his utility... in turning people away from creationism!
-------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to commend everyone for their valor under fire and generally
excellent work in rebuffing the recent Buckna-Fryman creationist assault
and want you to know that our arguments on the list have not been for
naught, as the following message from my friend (a creationist to
whom I've forwarded some of the stronger arguments) Dr. Ronald Martin
shows:
Garrison--
Thanks for forwarding the data on evolution with
information about the internet location for more. I read many of the 15
screens of information (I hope it doesn't fill up too much of my allotted
disk space; I may copy and delete it.), and got a bit more insight into
what scientists know and what they're speculating about. I may be ready to
concede an old earth and even common descent, pending more careful
examination of what scientists say they've seen, but I hang on to the idea
that biochemical pathways are too complicated to have evolved, although
they may shift a bit in their capabilities through mutation and selection,
thus God needed to direct each major development of biochemical reaction
chains, thus creating what species or genus spawned. Science offers us the
model of an adaptive landscape, with hills and valleys, with adaptation
able to roll downhill to nonadaptive forms (which are selected against),
but highly unlikely to climb out of that valley of extinction on the way
up the aptive hill to the stable-form high point. (I realize that this is
is a quickie explanation of a model that needs more thorough set-up, but
the model is in the ecology text used at CSUF in explaining problems with
adaptation.)
I need to log off and go to the library to research my
paper on the evolution of biochemical pathways. There is some literature
in the academic indexes, and I'm going to see what science can say.
--Ron
------------------------------------------------------------------
...and, of course, Ron then discovered that science had a lot of logical
answers to some supposedly "unanswerable" questions and went on to disavow
creationism entirely, all thanks to David Buckna and his letting the folks
from SKEPTIX know what cards the creationist cretins held. By the way,
Buckna... why are you complaining about people not answering your
questions when you haven't answered a single question that was posed to
you on the SKEPTIX list? And where are those "23 Questions Evolutionists
Can't Answer" that you touted so much, then ran away from the list when we
offered to answer them? And why aren't you telling folks that a complete
list of your stupidity, Bible-twisting (I'm still ROFL about your
statement that everything in the Bible is literally true except for those
places that aren't!), and outright lying can be found both in the SKEPTIX
archives and in Dejanews?
You are an asshole, aren't you, Davey?
Tim Ikeda
mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca says...
> In article <MPG.10ea886be...@news.earthlink.net>
> tik...@sprintmail.hormel.com (Tim Ikeda) writes:
> |Spetner dismisses gene duplication on the basis that it copies previously
> |existing "information".
>
> If that were all there was to it, I could understand the point,
> but does he ever consider the possibility that, oh, gene duplication *and*
> the process he just described and dismissed (point mutation) might operate
> together, simultaneously?
Or sequentially...
I don't know if he considers it. Perhaps that topic is addressed in his
book. He restricts himself to published reports.
[...]
> |Now, if one of those copies subsequently mutates which say, alters its
> |target function, that gets scored as a "loss of information" because:
> |A) It's lost some of its specificity for the original task (Either
> | because it binds its original substrate less well or because it
> | can now recognize new substrates - "specificity" can have different
> | measures)
>
> I don't quite understand -- at best, wouldn't it be a "loss of
> specificity" for the original, but a potential gain of specificity for
> some other?
Bingo. From his writings available on the net (I think the Torah Science
pages especially), I gather that one metric of "information" Spetner uses
is enzyme specificity. That is, the ability of a binding site on an
enzyme to preferentially interact with one molecule versus another.
Let's say that we start with an enzyme that normally binds and
catalyzes a reaction with "Sugar-A" but works very poorly with
"Sugar-B". Perhaps a reason for this is that Sugar-B has a side
group that cannot fit into the normal binding site for a substrate
(steric hinderance). Later, a mutation occurs which changes the binding
site, removing the steric hinderance to Sugar-B and permitting the
sugar to bind and react. With reference to the normal substrate, Sugar-A,
and in comparison with Sugar-B, we could say that the mutant enzyme has
lost some specificity. However, with reference to Sugar-B, we can say
that the mutant enzyme has increased its specificity, because it now
binds and reacts much better with this alternate substrate.
This situation is similar to that which Spetner describes in the Torah
Science web site for the adaptation of a bacterium to growth on
xylitol. He writes:
(in -- http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/evol1.htm)
"...compared to the wild type, the mutant enzyme was less active
on ribitol, more active on xylitol, and more active on L-arabitol."
In other words, the enzyme had lost specificity for its "normal"
substrate, ribitol, but _gained_ it (relative to ribitol) for xylitol
and L-arabitol.
> And doesn't this make the huge assumption that states with
> greater specificity do not exist, or that multiple targets can not be
> covered simultaneously if copies exist?
Bingo again.
Actually, we know that mutations which increase specificity against
particular substrate do arise. In fact, Spetner provides such an example
but seems to entirely miss the implications. That example is below...
> |or, if you can't make that argument stick...
> |B) We've lost part of the original sequence in the process.
>
> Oh, please. So, basically, adding anything at all is a "loss" of
> the "original sequence"?
That's my impression of the following passage...
He writes about the acquisition of streptomycin resistance:
"A point mutation in the right place grants the bacterium resistance
by losing information. Figure 2 shows schematically how a change in
the matching site on the ribosome can prevent the mycin molecule
from fitting onto the ribosome and interfering with its operation.
The change makes the bacterium resistant to the drug.
As you can see from Figure 2, the change could be in any one of
several places on the matching site to make the bacterium resistant.
Any one of several changes in the attachment site on the ribosomal
protein is enough to spoil its match with the mycin. That means that
a change in any one of several DNA nucleotides in the corresponding
gene can grant resistance. Indeed, several different mutations in
bacteria have been found to result in streptomycin resistance. We
see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome
protein, and that is a loss of genetic information. This loss of
information leads to a loss of sensitivity to the drug, resulting in
resistance. Since the information loss is in the gene, the effect is
heritable, and a whole strain of resistant bacteria can arise from
the mutant bacterium."
It's not at all clear how the mutation "reduces the specificity of the
ribosomal protein". Specificity of streptomycin binding? Specificity
of nucleotide sequence? Perhaps he feels that because any one of a
number of mutations could work, the information added cannot be
"specific"? I don't accept any of these possible arguments.
[big cut...]
> I don't understand his objections. If the size of the genome
> (independent of "information") can increase (e.g., via gene duplication),
> and if the genome can be modified by "loss of information" point mutations
> and other processes to the benefit of the organism, then, according to
> Spetner's specialized definitions, apparently no "increase in information"
> has occurred at each *step*, but can that be said about a process that
> involves both? Is the end result of the operation of both processes still
> a "loss of information"? I don't see how he can exclude this. Growing
> the size of the genome is not an obvious biological problem, and tweaking
> the genome to the benefit of the organism is not an obvious problem, so
> where is the general problem?
Spetner writes that he cannot demonstrate that there aren't mutations
which do not "increase information"; only that they must be uncommon
and that he knows of no actual examples in the literature. Well,
actually, I think he does but that doesn't recognize them as such.
[...]
> |In fairness, Spetner does say that a mutation which increased
> |biological information might be possible -- at least in theory.
>
> Let me guess -- if some designer inserts a relevant gene?
>
> |However, he does say that he doesn't know of such a case.
>
> Fair enough. I don't know of such a case either. But that
> probably says something about my lack of knowledge, rather than *a*
> general lack of knowledge.
I don't know personally know of cases where duplicated genes have been
dropped into organisms and followed for long periods of time in
laboratory cultures to see what happens (I don't follow those
things either, so if it happened, I'd only find out by stumbling
across a report). However, I think that an examination of gene families
might be interesting. There are examples of families out there which
display a wide range of sequence conservation.
From my work in bacteria, I do know that gene duplication is one
observed way of increasing gene expression (gosh, how did the
information for increased gene expression come about then?), a
mechanism that is sometimes "handy" for bacterial survival.
[...but cut...]
> |Big cut....
> |[...]
> |> Incidentally, does Spetner talk at all about some of the other
> |> mutations that are now known to occur with antibiotic resistance that
> |> improve survival in the absence of antibiotics in the environment? I
> |> don't know what the nature of those mutations are, but it is my guess
> |> that they might return some of the "specificity" that Spetner considers
> |> a "loss of information", in which case they would be the type of
> |> example you are looking for. Unfortunately, I do not know of any of
> |> the details for these ones, I just know they exist.
> |[...]
> |That example (published fairly recently) of bacteria which acquired
> |resistance to an antibiotic and subsequently acquired a means of
> |reducing the negative impact of the first mutation, is a good one.
>
> Potentially. But I don't know the genetic basis of it, and I am
> not sure whether it is known yet. If it turned out to be insertion of
> genes from some other bacteria, for example, I could see why someone like
> David or Spetner would dispute it. However, it could potentially be a
> *unique* combination of a point mutation and insertion of pre-existing
> genes from other sources, at least for that organism. Again, in
> combination, processes may actually break the prohibition Spetner seems to
> establish, if the system is held to a consistent definition.
Other metrics for evaluation of biological information that Spetner
invokes includes: relative rates of growth under "optimal" conditions,
enzyme stability, and relative enzyme activity. Spetner sets up a
scenario in which the failure to work better than the wild-type
in some situations is scored as an decrease in information. To
me it sounds as if he expects all information-increasing mutations
to work "better" in all environments.
[more cuts...]
tik...@my-dejanews.com
my normal newsreader, I would greatly appreciate it if you
retained talk.origins in the newsgroup header.
In article <7624q9$1nd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:[...]
> Some questions for Richard Dawkins and those who embrace
> atheistic naturalism:
>
> 1) You have written extensively about your selfish gene theory,
> yet it seems to be contradicted by the origin of mitochondria and
> chloroplasts via an endosymbiotic event. Apparently, the bacteria
> that give rise to these eucaryotic organelles lost most of their
> genome over evolutionary history. What happened to their selfish
> nature?
David, what corollary of the selfish gene hypothesis implies that all
genes in an organism must survive? I've never seen it mentioned that
the endosymbiosis of the mitochrondrion and the plastids involved
an altruistic event. Is that what you are suggesting when you asked
about the loss of "their selfish behavior"? I've seen you ask this
question before but the actual nature of the alleged problem escapes
me. Could you be more specific?
> 2) On page one of "The Blind Watchmaker" you state:"Biology is
> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having
> been designed for a purpose". If living things look designed (if
> the empirical evidence suggests purpose) then how do you know
> they _weren't_ designed? What is your criteria for "apparent design"?
I think that's something Dawkins has to answer for himself.
> 3) What was the specific evolutionary process that accounted for the
> complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life form that grows,
> metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces? (the four criteria for
> biological life)
That is not known.
> 4) Could you give any example of an evolutionary process or mechanism
> which can be seen to create new functional information at the genetic
> level? Do you know of any study that has shown that duplicated genes
> acquired different functions during an experiment or series of
> experiments?
"New functional information"? Hmmm, perhaps you haven't been following
the threads in talk.origins. You certainly haven't spent much time
defending the Spetnerian metrics of biological information that have
been debated in previous posts. Nor have you spent much time precisely
defining what biological information is. I would like you to do so
before this goes too much further.
Let me think of cases I've seen new abilities arise. Check out:
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=375867501
Spetner's example of xylitol utilization also comes to mind.
I think you might want to read the discussions in talk.origins
before replying so that we don't spend much time going over the
same ground twice.
Duplicated genes acquiring new function. Hmm... A bit difficult,
considering that most molecular biology experiments would not
be set up to directly detect that happening. However, I would
suggest the mutation of certain plasmid-encoded beta-lactamases
to cleave and/or bind novel chemical variants of penicillin might
present very simple examples of duplication + divergence. Looking
at genes on plasmids has the advantage that the genes are often
present in high numbers in a cell and can segregate unevenly.
Also, I would suggest looking into the literature about the analysis
of multigene families. Members of such families exhibit varying
degrees of sequence conservation; Some families have members which
are nearly identical while others have members whose relationships.
that may be hard to see.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tik...@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
tik...@my-dejanews.com
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
ske...@efn.org (Barry Williams) wrote:
>
> For those who would like to see just how well Richard Dawkins CAN answer
> questions about information and evolution, his article "The Information
> Challenge" is now on http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/index.htm. My
> response to Gillian Brown's claims of misrepresentation will be on the
> same
> site within the next day or two.
>
> Expect to see Sarfati's rambling attempts to discredit these in the not
> too
> distant future. In case anyone has wondered, Sarfati's PhD is in
> chemistry
> and his published research seems to involve high temperature
> semiconductors. An ideal background from which to critique complex
> biological theories I would say. In his own writings in the creationist
> press he is a dab hand with biblical quotations (apposite and otherwise)
> but doesn't add much of value to the store of human knowledge.
>
> Barry Williams
> the Skeptic of Oz
The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
Genesis (Australia):
---
> Expect to see Sarfati's rambling attempts to discredit these in the not
> too distant future. In case anyone has wondered, Sarfati's PhD is in
> chemistry and his published research seems to involve high temperature
> semiconductors.
Also, a lot of vibrational spectroscopy, which was my major specialist field.
Note, to those who claim that creationists can't do science, an article in
the La Trobe Bulletin Sept. 1998 praised the exceptional scientific abilities
of a scientist, partly because she had a paper published in Nature at the
young age of 25. I was joint author of a paper on superconductors published
in Nature when I was 22.
> An ideal background from which to critique complex
> biological theories I would say.
Now Barry, what are *your* scientific qualifications? How are *you* qualified
to discuss matters of any field of science?
> In his own writings in the creationist
> press he is a dab hand with biblical quotations
When one is writing for people who believe the Bible is authoritative, e.g.
AiG supporters, it is reasonable to use biblical quotations. And a
professing 'evangelical' group like ISCAST should also accept the authority
of Scripture if 'evangelical' is not to be stripped of all meaning.
Note that in my scientific articles, I document my claims with the scientific
literature. Many of them are in my general field of chemistry, and a recent
Technical Journal article 'Olfactory Design: Smell and Spectroscopy' (on the
website at http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/article.asp?ID=3839) was in
my specialist field.
> (apposite and otherwise)
What would you know?
> but doesn't add much of value to the store of human knowledge.
And you do? I hope Barry sees the truth of creation one day. There might
even be a place for him on AiG staff -- even though he would raise the
average age and weight while lowering the average IQ and qualifications.
Jonathan Sarfati
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <36812...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
> the mutations are not information adding. Sometimes the
> > resistance was already present, other times it was transferred via
> > plasmids from other bacteria, and yet others from an information loss,
> > like loss of control of a gene regulating production of penecillinase.
>
> Still others represent a gain of information, such as the ability to
> metabolise plastics (obviously not previously present in the natural
> world).
You would need to document this. I am aware of nylon metabolism. But this is
easily explained by loss of specificity in an
enzyme designed to hydrolyse amide bonds. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance'
discusses several information losing mutations,
including loss of specificity, which enable bacteria to digest new substances.
> > This has not proven that new information has arisen. It only shows that
> > some bacteria are somehow resistant and are therefore selected. This is
> > natural selection, but not evolution.
>
> Have you ever done any bacterial experiments?
Have you? From your signature, you are a computer programmer, not a
scientist.
> You start with a minuscule sample, just tens of bacterial cells, and then grow them up into billions
> before testing for resistance. If the resistance were already present, it
> would be present in one of the 20 or so 'parent' cells, and an equal
> proportion of the progeny would share it at the time the biocide were
> added, meaning that a few hundred million cells would survive, and any plate you
> grew from the growth medium would carry a complete "lawn" of viable
> bacteria.
Not necessarily. The resistance gene could be recessive, so only shows up
when homozygous.
> I'd be impressed if you can cite a study of the appearance of
> resistance phenotype where it appeared at a rate even approaching one in a
> million, single colonies per plate rather than thousands...
We know from bacteria thawed from corpses frozen before antibiotics were
manufactured by man, and some were already resistant.
> I am also amused that you think "this is natural selection, not
> evolution". Evolution is *defined* as change of gene frequency in a population with
> time.
Well, I must be an evolutionist then! So must all of us at Answers in
Genesis.
> Since even by your demonstrably false claim, you started with a population
> in which resistance was present at low frequency and ended with a
> population in which resistance was present in all viable individuals, you have - by
> definition - described an evolutionary process.
By your definition. I agree that the gene frequency has changed with time,
but big whoop -- no-one disputes this. But you apply the Pernicious Principle
of Extravagant Extrapolation when you claim that this has anything to do with
particles-to-people evolution.
> > The point is, if a leading ardent atheistic propagandist for Darwinism
>
> If he werent leading or ardent, he wouldn't be being interviewed on the
> subject, would he?
>
> He is indeed an atheist, I beleive, but that has precisely *nothing* to do
> with his practise of science.
Have you *read* him? See below.
> Science is methodologically naturalistic
Sez U. I would agree with you about operation science but not origin science.
> but not inherently anti-religous;
Sez U -- coming from one who thinks that denial of the Resurrection is not
anti- christian, this assurance isnt worth much.
> Dawkins is apparently inclined to be
> philosophically naturalistic *as well*, but then so what? My dentist is an
> atheist - does that prove that the art of dentistry is inherently
> atheistic?
Operational science.
> My computing manager is an atheist - does that mean that the screen you
> are reading this on now must by definition be trying to undermine your faith?
> If you answer no to either of those, you ought to be ashamed of trying to
> tar the subject by citing irrelevances about one of its practitioners.
Again, perational science. To illustrate, a your computer's operation can be
completely explained by physico-chemical laws, but
those laws didn't make your computer in the first place.
> > could not answer a question about direct experimental evidence for his
> > beloved theory, then the theory is in trouble.
>
> Surely you cannot really beleive this? ROFL
I do.
> ... and if the pope stumbles over a piece of liturgy (as he has in the
> past), does that mean that the entire edifice of christianity totters?
I am a Protestant, so who cares what the Pope stumbles over.
> ...and if a professor of mathematics uses the wrong digit in the 9th
> decimal place of pi in one of her calculations, do all circles universe-wide start
> to waver and fade as the whole "theory of geometry" falters and dies?
There would be a problem if this was an essential part of geometry, and this
prof is a leading expert, and if she could not
subsequently answer the question ...
> As Dawkins himself has said, a whole chapter of his latest book (which was
> already with the publishers at the time of the interview, I understand) is devoted to answering the question
We shall see ...
> you seem to think is important.
It is. If you can't explain the origin of information without intelligence,
evolution (from goo to you via the zoo) is dead.
> The point being, whether by mishearing the question or even dying on the
> spot of a massive coronary, the failure to answer any question on a
> subject by one individual during one "general media" interview doesnt tell us
> *anything* about whether the subject itself encompasses an answer to that
> question. Of course, if the question were posed in the scientific
> literature and all the workers in that field in toto given weeks in which to research
> their answer *still* couldn't address it, *then* a "theory is in trouble".
Well, go ahead and address it, and don't give me trite irrelevant examples of
things changing over time.
> Be careful about "casting the first stone". You think creationists are
> innocent of smear campaigns?
Yep.
> When a few paragraphs above *you* emphasise
> Dawkin's atheism as if it might have some bearing on the theory he is one
> among many proponents of?
Yes, because he flaunts his theories precisely to explain the design in living
things without God. He is very open about his
atheistic apologetics.
> > Bad analogy. We *observe* that the sky is blue. We do not
> > observe one type of animal changing into another, with increase of
> > genetic information, over millions of years.
>
> Show me the person who (I'll be generous, how about surviving written
> record) that is millions of years old and has the *opportunity* therefore
> to demonstrate the constancy or variability of species. You arent even
> supposed to beleive in a *universe* that old, so how can you challenge for proof on
> that timescale?
You are the ones asserting that one type of organism changes to another, and
you are the ones that whinge that we can't observe them because the timescale
is too large.
> On the timescale we have available to us, we see patterns that are
> consistent with and predicted by the theory that proposes precisely the
> larger changes over larger timescales that you find so objectionable.
Nonsense. The observed changes are information losing or sorting, not
gaining.
> On the records we *do* have that address the larger timescale, the fossil record
> and gene sequence information, we also see exactly what the theory
> predicts, worldwide, no exceptions yet found.
Pure assertion. Exceptions are explained away readily. When proteins from
camels and sharks match, for example, it is explained by 'convergence'. When
fossils are out of order, it is 'reworking of strata' or 'intrusions' for
example.
> > > I think this attempt to inflate Dawkins'
> > > supposed pause into an indication of "nothing" being there would be
> > > hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
>
> > No, the logic is the valid type of reasoning known as denying the
> > consequent.
>
> Ha!
>
> Denying the Consequent may be represented by the following:
>
> If P, then Q. Not Q. So not P.
I know perfectly well what it means, as well as the fallacy. See
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/JonosLogic1/JonosLOGIC1.html
> This is valid logic, but doesnt actually map onto the sequence of events
> in question in any meaningful way.
>
> What you have actually committed is the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent:
> ^^^^^^^
> If P, then Q. Not P. So not Q.
>
> Where P is "Dawkins can answer 'off the cuff'" and Q is "The theory
> contains an answer", for example.
No, the sequence was 'If there is an answer to such an obvious question, then
the world's leading evolutionary propagandist
should know. The world's leading evolutionary propagandist doesn't know ...
> > Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
> > only a handful of disputable examples.
Falsified prediction is definitely an example of denying the consequent.
> Even were this ridiculous claim true (there are vast swathes of
> transitional forms accepted by a massive consensus of biologists),
Pure assertion.
> the flip side of the coin is that creationism ought to predict that there shouldn't be *any*
> transitional forms *at all*, right?
Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that are 90%
scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90 feather. All
we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible variation within
a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and Ornithorhyncus (playtpus)
which have a mixture of traits, none of which are transitional.
> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among other
> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of the
vairieties of horses in the fossil record, or the herring/lesser black-backed
gull, are merely variants within a kind.
Bigdakine
>From: jaro...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: 12/28/98 9:30 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <768msa$1up$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>
>Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that are 90%
>scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90 feather. All
>we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible variation within
>a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and Ornithorhyncus (playtpus)
>which have a mixture of traits, none of which are transitional.
>
>> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among other
>> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
>
>The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
>organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
>range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of
the
>vairieties of horses in the fossil record
> or the herring/lesser black-backed
>gull, are merely variants within a kind.
First define "kind". This what I mean by definition, Species - A population of
organisms which can breed with each other but are reproductively isolated from
other populations (aka BSC). Give a similar definition of kind. Don't give
examples..., a definition. Thanx..
Stuart
>
>Jonathan Sarfati
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to realy foul things up
requires a creationist"
maff91
>In article <36814...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> ske...@efn.org (Barry Williams) wrote:
>>
>> For those who would like to see just how well Richard Dawkins CAN answer
>> questions about information and evolution, his article "The Information
>> Challenge" is now on http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/index.htm. My
>> response to Gillian Brown's claims of misrepresentation will be on the
>> same
>> site within the next day or two.
>>
>> Expect to see Sarfati's rambling attempts to discredit these in the not
>> too
>> distant future. In case anyone has wondered, Sarfati's PhD is in
>> chemistry
>> and his published research seems to involve high temperature
>> semiconductors. An ideal background from which to critique complex
>> biological theories I would say. In his own writings in the creationist
>> press he is a dab hand with biblical quotations (apposite and otherwise)
>> but doesn't add much of value to the store of human knowledge.
>>
>> Barry Williams
>> the Skeptic of Oz
>
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
So why don't you tell us which businesses are exploiting creationist
scientific discoveries?
http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336
wf...@enter.netxx
>Also, a lot of vibrational spectroscopy, which was my major specialist field.
>Note, to those who claim that creationists can't do science, an article in
>the La Trobe Bulletin Sept. 1998 praised the exceptional scientific abilities
>of a scientist, partly because she had a paper published in Nature at the
>young age of 25. I was joint author of a paper on superconductors published
>in Nature when I was 22.
meaningless. no one ever said creationists dont do science. they dont
do CREATION science. not ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has EVER published a
paper in ANY peer reviewed journal in the WORLD stating that
1. evolution didnt happen
2 the earth is only 6000 yrs old
3. all species were created distinct from each other
the real proof that 'creation science' doesnt exist is the silence of
'creation' scientists.
James G. Acker
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
In response to:
> > Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
> > only a handful of disputable examples.
Sarfati: Falsified prediction is definitely an example of denying
the consequent.
> Even were this ridiculous claim true (there are vast swathes of
> transitional forms accepted by a massive consensus of biologists),
Sarfati: Pure assertion.
> the flip side of the coin is that creationism ought to predict that there shouldn't be *any*
> transitional forms *at all*, right?
Sarfati: Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that
are 90% scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90
feather. All we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible
variation within a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and
Ornithorhyncus (playtpus) which have a mixture of traits, none of which are
transitional.
*** No discussion of the archaeocetes, or of the more recent
feathered dinosaurs (Caudipteryx et al.) from China. As these are the
most prominent evidence, Sarfati and his ilk will obviously not want to
discuss them.
In response to:
> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among other
> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
Sarfati:
The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of the
vairieties of horses in the fossil record, or the herring/lesser black-backed
gull, are merely variants within a kind.
*** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Tim Ikeda
says...
> The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
> Genesis (Australia):
>
> ---
> In article <36812...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
>
>>> the mutations are not information adding. Sometimes the
>>> resistance was already present, other times it was transferred
>>> via plasmids from other bacteria, and yet others from an
>>> information loss, like loss of control of a gene regulating
>>> production of penecillinase.
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) replies:
>> Still others represent a gain of information, such as the ability to
>> metabolise plastics (obviously not previously present in the natural
>> world).
Sarfati comments:
> You would need to document this. I am aware of nylon metabolism. But
> this is easily explained by loss of specificity in anenzyme designed to
> hydrolyse amide bonds. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance' discusses
> several information losing mutations, including loss of specificity,
> which enable bacteria to digest new substances.
Does the loss of substrate specificity for one reactant necessary
respresent a loss of biological information? Couldn't one also argue
that ability to catalyze a reaction with a new substrate respresents
an increase in specificity for the new substrate? For certainly that
ability didn't exist before or at a rate sufficient to allow the
bacterium to compete in the new environment. It sounds as though the
quantification of "information" this way is extremely context-specific
and subject to much confusion. I've asked others who've read Spetner's
book to discuss Lee's various metrics of biological information but
nobody has yet responded.
>>> This has not proven that new information has arisen. It only shows
>>> that some bacteria are somehow resistant and are therefore selected.
>>> This is natural selection, but not evolution.
>>
>> Have you ever done any bacterial experiments?
Sarfati responds
> Have you? From your signature, you are a computer programmer, not a
> scientist.
You don't have to be a bacteriologist to know that antibiotic
resistance can arise spontaneously by mutations. All you have
to do is pick up a good book or tune into talk.origins every
so often.
>> You start with a minuscule sample, just tens of bacterial cells, and
>> then grow them up into billions before testing for resistance. If the
>> resistance were already present, it would be present in one of the 20
>> or so 'parent' cells, and an equal proportion of the progeny would
>> share it at the time the biocide were added, meaning that a few
>> hundred million cells would survive, and any plate you grew from the
>> growth medium would carry a complete "lawn" of viable bacteria.
>
> Not necessarily. The resistance gene could be recessive, so only show
> up when homozygous.
[...]
Bacterial genes are typically "homozygous". That's what happens when
you've only got one chromosome and one copy of a gene. "Haploid"
is a good work to use.
As for the question of whether drug resistant mutants can arise
spontaneously; that was nailed down decades ago. See the work by
the Joshua & Esther M. Lederberg (J. Bacteriol. [1952] 63:399-406)
or Salvadore Luria & Max Delbruck (Genetics [1943] 28:491). You
could also read an old post of mine where I provide a quick overview
of the work: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=180274123
Honus
> The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
> Genesis (Australia):
> And you do? I hope Barry sees the truth of creation one day. There might
> even be a place for him on AiG staff -- even though he would raise the
> average age and weight while lowering the average IQ and qualifications.
>
> Jonathan Sarfati
Buckna, you and Sarfati are both a couple of pricks. If I had been
taught in church that I could act like you guys and still enter the
kingdom of heaven, I never would have left. I hope every Christian
parent strives to raise their children to behave as the two of you do,
thus guaranteeing the eventual death of your cult. Go on, guys...have
more kids! I just *love* natural selection.
--
"Science rules." "Death to spammers."
-Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
email.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
"James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>
> Jim Acker
For starters, check out:
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
by Ashby L. Camp
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
by Frank Sherwin
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
---
David Buckna
"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."--Stephen Wright
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
| "James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
|
|> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
|> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
|> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
|> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
|>
|> Jim Acker
|
|
|For starters, check out:
It does not address Jim's question.
|The Overselling of Whale Evolution
|by Ashby L. Camp
|http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
What does this show, other than the fact that the record is still
(and inevitably) incomplete, and there is therefore uncertainty about the
exact relationships of the whale fossils that are now known? When will
that ever not be true, unless a near-perfect record were available, which
whale fossils do not provide by any stretch of the imagination? What is
known is still better than what was known in the recent past. Ashby's
points do not make the connection between the uncertainty about
relationships to the conclusion that there *aren't* relationships (and he
does not try to, really), because he does not adequately consider how the
record should look given the geological situation and the abundance of
whale fossils (of any kind) in the relevant interval. Whale fossils are
not so common in the lower part of the Eocene that they should be turning
up in huge numbers, the exact phylogeny can be determined with great
certainty, and the stratigraphic succession will fit hypothesized
phylogeny perfectly.
Ashby also makes several errors of omission or detail. For
example, he is correct that _Basilosaurus_ is not considered the closest
archaeocete ancestor to subsequent whales, but _Dorudon_ and its relatives
are, which has been suggested since at least the late 1970s or so. He
talks about the subfamily Basilosaurinae (and _Basilosaurus_isis_ in
particular), but neglects the other subfamily, Dorudontinae, that is
classified into the same family Basilosauridae (the Dorudontinae is likely
paraphyletic, and gave rise to both the Basilosaurinae and later
dorudontines that are in turn thought to have been ancestral to later
whales). There are other whales involved in the divergence of Odontocete
and Mysticete whales that he fails to talk about, such as the agorophiids
(e.g., species of the genus _Agorophius_) and aetiocetids. Ashby rather
undersells what is known about the later parts of whale evolution from the
fossil record, although, inevitably, uncertainty still exists.
None of the uncertainty about relationships diminishes the
observation that the morphological gaps continue to get smaller as
sampling has increased, and even if the hypothesis that whales originated
from mesonychid land mammals turns out to be in error (or even that
mesonychids have been misclassified themselves), it does not diminish the
basic evidence: that there are these strange, limbed whales found only in
the earliest periods of whale existence.
|Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
|by Frank Sherwin
|http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
If I recall correctly, I haven't read this one. Does it address
Jim's question?
..
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <76cgoh$3m3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
> "James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
>> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
>> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
>> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>>
>> Jim Acker
>
>
>For starters, check out:
>
>
transitional forms. If you don't have all the gaps filled, then you can't claim
common descent.
Well Dave, so what? We can't be sure that these fossil whales constitute a
direct lineage. They almost assuredly don't. What I would claim is that they
share a common ancestor. What do you think transitional form means anyway?
What do you suppose their purpose is in evolutionary theory?
Whether they constitute a direct lineage is not important. What is important is
that they show various steps in the aquisition, and specialization of aquatic
features. This was not addressed by this page (AFAICT). Instead Ashby's article
took apart a straw man. I don't know anyone who claimed that these fossils
formed a direct lineage ... What they do show is that primitive whales were not
only biologically possible, but they existed.
Love the use of the quote by Simpson from 1945. I suppose nothing has changed
since then...
Stuart
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
maff91
>In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
> "James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
>> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
>> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
>> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>>
>> Jim Acker
>
>
>For starters, check out:
>
>
>The Overselling of Whale Evolution
>by Ashby L. Camp
>http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
>
>
>Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
>by Frank Sherwin
>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
>
>
>---
>
>David Buckna
>
>"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."--Stephen Wright
>
So what fundie cult do you belong, Buckna?
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
> "James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
>> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
>> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
>> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>>
>> Jim Acker
>
>
>For starters, check out:
>
>
>The Overselling of Whale Evolution
>by Ashby L. Camp
>http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
>
>
>Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
>by Frank Sherwin
>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
>
>
please refer us to a site that deals with science, not those dealing
with christian ministries. the ICR to which you refer has a bias; it
REQUIRES its members to be fundamentalist xtians. thus its NOT an
objective source.
>
>David Buckna
>
>"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."--Stephen Wright
>
>
James G. Acker
"James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> *** And what of Ambulocetus? Rodhocetus kasrani? Georgiacetus
> vogtlensis? Basilosaurus isis? Merely variants within a kind, a kind
> that has both legs and fins? Which kind are they in, the "walking
> mammal" kind or the "whale" kind?
>
> Jim Acker
Response to Ashby Camp and Frank Sherwin Web articles
In response to the above comment regarding transitional fossils,
David Buckna suggested reading two different Web pieces by the
above authors regarding archaeocete evolution. A quick reading shows
that the two authors have significant difficulty actually addressing the
evidence. Though time does not permit a thorough review, and
because I'm only a layman, I will only briefly illustrate the problems.
Readers are invited to evaluate each of the texts themselves:
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
by Ashby L. Camp
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
by Frank Sherwin
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
First, Ashby Camp:
1. Camp makes a great deal out of supposed dating uncertainties,
while at the same time noting that the given fossils cannot be constructed
to form a "lineage". These are standard creationist ploys. What he does
not acknowledge is that definitive dates are only for the fossil found --
single specimens do not provide the full temporal range of existence of the
species. I.e., Camp is invoking the fallacy that descendant species must
replace ancestral species, and ignoring the more likely possibility that
the existence periods for these species probably overlapped significantly.
Thus, his discussion of dating uncertainties is founded on fallacious
grounds. Furthermore, the closeness of the temporal range of existence
of these fossils is a strong argument FOR their relatedness -- a point Camp
obviously does not want to stress. I.e., the period of transition between
terrestrial predecessors and aquatic descendants was only a few million years.
Speaking geologically, the existence of broad shallow seas during this period
made it an optimum time for the required "back to the sea" evolution.
As do most creationists, Camp notes that there is a lack of "clear
ancestor to descendant relationships" in the archaeocetes. While that may
be, given that there are only a small number of fossils, he does not want to
talk about the progression of modifications exhibited by the fossils. To
whit, development of swimming capability in the spine and fins and the
diminishment of limbs. Most notably, even though the piece was written in
1998, Camp does not mention Georgiacetus vogtlensis, which exhibits a spinal
modification critical to the change from terrestrial to aquatic. The only
thing that Camp attempts to do is cast doubt on the relationship between the
early archaeocetes and Basilosaurus, and on the relationship between
Basilosaurus specifically and later archaeocetes (explained well in
Andrew MacRae's response regarding the Dorudontinae).
What does Camp leave out? Plenty!
-- the shape of the lumbar vertebra of Ambulocetus natans;
-- the entire litany of skull structures that connects Ambulocetus
with cetaceans, despite the fact that Ambulocetus had complete forelimbs and
hindlimbs;
-- the spinal modifications in Rodhocetus kasrani;
-- the type of sediments in which Rodhocetus kasrani was found
(deep-sea pelagic);
-- the reduction of the femur in Rodhocetus compared to earlier
archaoecetes;
-- the spinal structure of Georgiacetus vogtlensis;
-- the nasal conformation of Georgiacetus vogtlensis;
-- the fully-formed legs of Basilosaurus, which Camp calls a
"gigantic marine archaeocete" (emphasis on the word MARINE); and
-- the conformation and location of the nostrils on the snout
of Basilosaurus.
Thus, when discussing the existence of transitional whale fossils,
it's clear that Camp doesn't want to discuss evidence of transition!
(Just as an interesting sidenote, Camp also fails to mention
Aetiocetus, the transitional link between the toothed whales and the
baleen whales. MacRae also notes this omission.)
For all readers, there is an extensive online presentation
regarding Georgiacetus vogtlensis at this URL:
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/rhulbert/georgiacetus.htm
Next, Frank Sherwin:
Sherwin's entire argument strives to cast doubt on the possibility
of physiological changes that could allow terrestrial mammals to become
marine mammals. For example, he questions the transition from "freshwater"
Ambulocetus to "saltwater" Indocetus in 3 million years, crucially ignoring
that the primary range of many of these forms was considered to be epigenetic
(shallow) seas which likely exhibited a range of salinities similarly to
estuaries today. He also conveniently ignores the modern existence of
freshwater dolphins in the Amazon and Ganges, and the ability of manatees
and dugongs to move freely between freshwater and saltwater habitats.
Over and over again Sherwin attempts to cast doubt on the
macroevolutionary "modifications" that couldn't happen, whereas the fossils
demonstrate that macroevolutionary modifications were taking place, the
modification of forelimbs to fins and the reduction of the hindlimbs being
the most obvious of these changes.
Sherwin's section on spinal modifications is laughable:
"The land ancestor of the whale would have to gradually eliminate
its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and
associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes).
Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal
tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed
land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea."
Sorry, Mr. Sherwin. This sequence of spinal modifications is exactly
what has been observed from Ambulocetus to Georgiacetus to Rodhocetus to
Basilosaurus. The authors speculate that Ambulocetus did not have tail
flukes but that Rodhocetus could very well have.
Furthermore, it may come as a surprise to Mr. Sherwin that
modern whales still have pelvic bones, to which the gonads attach!
(I suppose that Rodhocetus kasrani, which may or may not have had
tail flukes, but which had four limbs and which was found in deep-sea
sediments, was a "deformed land creature". How sad.)
I have difficult figuring out what Sherwin is trying to do with
John Gatesy's DNA analyses. Since it is suggested that whales are descended
from artiodactyls, a link between hippopotamuses (also artiodactyls) and
whales is not surprising. It might be more clear if it was possible to
read Gatesy's article, but I don't have access to the journal from which the
quote was taken.
In essence, Camp and Sherwin exemplify the creationist tradition of
attempting to blur the legitimate work of scientists with obfuscation, a
trait that Christians should be wary of in light of the Biblical commandment
not to bear false witness.
James G. Acker
In article <1998122916...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
"James G. Acker" <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
CORRECTION:
The sequential order of pelvic/spinal modifications given in
this paragraph is incorrect:
"Sorry, Mr. Sherwin. This sequence of spinal modifications is exactly
what has been observed from Ambulocetus to Georgiacetus to Rodhocetus to
Basilosaurus. The authors speculate that Ambulocetus did not have tail
flukes but that Rodhocetus could very well have."
The proper order should be
Ambulocetus --> Rodhocetus --> Georgiacetus --> Basilosaurus
(note that there are other species known; this presentation
concentrates on the major steps of spinal modification from a primarily
amphibious organism to a fully aquatic organism)
Specifically, Rodhocetus may still have been able to use its
legs on land, but Georgiacetus probably was unable to do so.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <368ab...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
> jaro...@my-dejanews.com (David Buckna) posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan
> Sarfati, of Answers in Genesis (Australia):
>
> [mutations]
> > You would need to document this. I am aware of nylon metabolism. But
> > this is easily explained by loss of specificity in an enzyme designed to
> > hydrolyse amide bonds. Lee Spetner's book 'Not By Chance' discusses
> > several information losing mutations, including loss of specificity,
> > which enable bacteria to digest new substances.
>
> I'll reply with the refs in question when I'm back from the holiday with
> my resources.
No hurry -- I have a similar problem.
> Fortunately, you provide an exactly equivalent example which presumably
> you do not question.
Indeed, I'm not afraid of the evidence, even if my opponent uses it to
support his case.
> The biological world had never seen nylon before its recent invention.
But it is still a condensation polymer with amide links, which is not
exactly unknown in the biological world.
> Yet you accept that nylon is now a substrate for an enzyme-mediated
> biochemical reaction. So, "life" has *gained* the ability to metabolise a
manmade
> chemical previously non-existant in nature. Yet you want to characterise
this as a
> loss of information! Please provide the definition of "information" that
> makes this assertion other than foolish.
As I told you, Spetner covers the example of organisms metabolizing zylose.
Two of the mutations are definitely deactivating, while the one we are
disputing is claimed to be a loss of info for specificity.
> > Have you? From your signature, you are a computer programmer, not a
> > scientist.
> My degree was in molecular biology and biochemistry, and my masters in
> agricultural biotechnology. Following its completion, I did a few years of
> post-grad research in immunogenetics before switching to computing. You
> will find my name in the peer-review literature of bacterial genetics if
you
> look hard enough,
I believe you.
> > Not necessarily. The resistance gene could be recessive, so only shows
> > up when homozygous.
> Before your next round of lecturing on bacterial genetics, *please*
> reconsider this statement!
Fair point -- forgot about that -- apologies for carelessness (not that I
had never learnt some of the differences between procaryote and eucaryote
genetics). Would apply to insecticide resistance, but clearly not to
bacterial resistance as you say.
> > We know from bacteria thawed from corpses frozen before antibiotics were
> > manufactured by man, and some were already resistant.
>
> Please present the citation. By asking above for my reference, you
> demonstrate awareness of the importance of support for such statements, so
> I am surprised that you neglected to provide the citation for such an
> assertion.
I thought it was widely known and not disputed by evolutionists.
> [definition of evolution]
>
> > > I am also amused that you think "this is natural selection, not
> > > evolution". Evolution is *defined* as change of gene frequency in a
> > > population with time.
> >
> > Well, I must be an evolutionist then! So must all of us at Answers in
> > Genesis.
>
> >>From your surprise,
I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
creation!
> I assume that you've never read an undergrad level
> textbook in biology, since this is a standard definition.
I have read them, but see no point in arguing something which no-one
disputes. My dispute was with the 'General Theory of Evolution', defined
by Prof. G.A. Kerkut of Southampton Uni as the theory that all living
things came from a single cell which came from an inorganic source -- in
his book Implications of Evolution. So I'm not using a made-up creationist
definition but a reasonable one from an evolutionist who distinguishes the
General Theory from the what you have defined, which ha calls the 'special
theory'.
> > I agree that the gene frequency has changed with time, but big whoop --
> > no-one disputes this. But you apply the Pernicious Principle of
> > Extravagant Extrapolation when you claim that this has anything to do
> >with particles-to-people evolution.
> How so?
Pretty obvious, I would have thought. It's like the difference between 'a
cow can jump' and 'a cow can jump over the moon'. The first doesn't
entail the second, and minor changes in beak size, moth coloration etc
don't show that they came from a single cell.
> Firstly "particles-to-people evolution" is a contradiction. Evolutionary
> theory addresses the ways in which reproducing systems change in time
> through interaction with their environment. Particles don't reproduce in
> this sense.
You are too narrow. You are thinking only of 'organic evolution'.
> You are trying to slip through the classic creationist ploy of
> lumping abiogenesis and biological evolution into the same subject heading
> (doubtless you'd include cosmology and the Big Bang in there as well).
Creationist ploy?! You should tell that to Kerkut. Abiogensis is
commonly called 'chemical evolution' or 'prebiotic evolution', and is
discussed in Dawkins' works and many other evolutionist texts. And it's
the evolutionists who lump them together when the resort to natural
selection to explain the origin of life -- of course, until there are
self-reproducing entities, natural selection (differential reproduction) is
impossible.
'Cosmic evolution' and 'stellar evolution' are common terms as well.
> Secondly, if you accept changes of gene frequency in a population you
> therefore have to either accept the whole package of Darwinian evolution,
> or you have to describe the discontinuity of the system and provide a
reason
> for such changes not to accumulate into speciation...
Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
> ["evolution must be anti-bible because Dawkins is an atheist"]
>
> > > He is indeed an atheist, I beleive, but that has precisely *nothing*
> >> to do with his practise of science.
> >
> > Have you *read* him? See below.
>
> I've read him and indeed spoken with him.
> The fact remains that no matter his personal opinions, when he does
> science he has to follow the rules of science, which are designed to
divorce the
> personal preferences of the scientist from their work.
Doesn't stop him from using his evolutionary theories to pontificate in
favour of atheism. The self-serving atheistic 'rules' of scientism help
him so much.
> > Sez U -- coming from one who thinks that denial of the Resurrection is
> > not anti- christian, this assurance isnt worth much.
>
> I didnt give my opinion on it, merely stated that someone who is acepted
> by the Church of England as a senior religious leader thought it wasn't.
But with evident approval. So it's impossible to take your statements
about Christianity seriously.
> And why don't you address the point. If the religious views of a dentist
> don't invalidate dentistry, why should the religious views of a biologist
> invalidate evolution?
Since evolution, according to Dawkins, directly makes it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist, and because Gould pointed out that Darwin
was specifically trying to counter the theory of divine creation.
> You still havent addressed the point.
I made it clear. The operations of something do not explain its origin,
which may be the resault of intelligent design.
> That is mildly amusing and deeply disturbing by turns. That such cracked
> reasoning should be influencing the activities of an organisation that
> seeks to sway childrens education and aspects of politics... scary.
Huh -- coming from a fan of Dawkins who overtly promotes atheism in his
capacity as a science educator, that's rich.
> > > ... and if the pope stumbles over a piece of liturgy (as he has in the
> > > past), does that mean that the entire edifice of christianity totters?
> >
> > I am a Protestant, so who cares what the Pope stumbles over.
>
> Dawkins is just one among tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists, so
> who cares what *he* stumbles over?
The difference is that he is widely regarded as an authority by
atheistic/agnostic skeptics, while the Pope is not an authority for
protestants.
> You can't have it both ways: either the failure of one is the dismissal of
> the entire field, or it is simply a human failing.
>
> > If you can't explain the origin of information without intelligence,
> > evolution (from goo to you via the zoo) is dead.
>
> The published research of the field can. *Dawkins* can. In one
> off-the-cuff answer to a supposedly off-camera question, he didn't answer.
And he still hasn't given any experimental evidence!
> > > Be careful about "casting the first stone". You think creationists are
> > > innocent of smear campaigns?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Amazing.
You are easily amazed.
> > > When a few paragraphs above *you* emphasise
> > > Dawkin's atheism as if it might have some bearing on the theory he is
> > > one> among many proponents of?
> >
> > Yes, because he flaunts his theories precisely to explain the design in
> > living things without God. He is very open about his atheistic
> > apologetics.
What are you, an expert on biblical archaeology now? The Bible is a
historical record!
> > > On the timescale we have available to us, we see patterns that are
> > > consistent with and predicted by the theory that proposes precisely
> the
> > > larger changes over larger timescales that you find so objectionable.
> >
> > Nonsense. The observed changes are information losing or sorting, not
> > gaining.
>
> Not nonsense. Observed fact. What is natural selection if it isnt
> "information sorting"?
Yes, sorting out what is already there, but removing some information.
> > > On the records we *do* have that address the larger timescale, the
> fossil record
> > > and gene sequence information, we also see exactly what the theory
> > > predicts, worldwide, no exceptions yet found.
> >
> > Pure assertion.
>
> In support of my "assertion", I refer the reader to *the entire body of
> modern biology*. I would provide full citations, but I think I might die
before I
> could type them all in, since I'm in my late 20's already.
Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded by
creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
> Perhaps you could save time by citing just one exception that is widely
> accepted as being inexplicable by any variant of evolutionary theory.
>
> > Exceptions are explained away readily. When proteins from camels and
> > sharks match, for example, it is explained by 'convergence'. When
> fossils
> > are out of order, it is 'reworking of strata' or 'intrusions' for
> example.
>
> Am I to understand that you deny convergance is possible? That strata
> undergo subsequent deformations?
I meant, contrary evidence is readily explained away.
> > No, the sequence was 'If there is an answer to such an obvious question,
> then the world's leading evolutionary propagandist
> > should know. The world's leading evolutionary propagandist doesn't know
Anyway, we will let viewers judge for themselves. Most of them would have
seen Dawkins' rationalizations.
> Let's try this one:
>
> "AIG is a leading creationist organisation. If one of its representatives
> makes a trivial mistake about bacterial genetics, the organisations
> commentaries on biology should be ignored".
Of course, when a chemist not acting in official capacity
makes a slip in bacteriology in an informal
setting, it hardly proves much -- not nearly as much as the world's
leading atheistic apologist for evolution failing to answer a key question
about his theory. The staff scientists who have Ph.D.s in molecular
biology and plant physiology respectively would have picked that up the
bacteriological slip during editing of any formal publications (even I with
my nonexpert knowledge of the subject might have picked it up on a second
reading).
> c) that expertise in a field guarantees perfect memory, immunity from
> anger at being tricked into a creationist propaganda film etc.
Talk about accepting Dawkins' rationalizations after the event.
> > > > Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms. However, there are
> > > > only a handful of disputable examples.
> > Falsified prediction is definitely an example of denying the consequent.
> Hurrah. But its not the statement you *said* was an example,
I rephrased it more formally, and it was fine.
> > > Even were this ridiculous claim true (there are vast swathes of
> > > transitional forms accepted by a massive consensus of biologists),
> >
> > Pure assertion.
>
> See the T.O. FAQ for long lists of examples.
Why should I trust them? The True Origins archive is much better.
>
> > > the flip side of the coin is that creationism ought to predict that
> there shouldn't be *any*
> > > transitional forms *at all*, right?
> > Exactly.
> > All we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible
variation
> > within a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and
Ornithorhyncus
> > (playtpus) which have a mixture of traits, none of which are
> > transitional.
>
> My turn to say "pure assertion". The consensus of those studying the field
> is that these *are* transitional forms.
I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
birds and mammals! The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
with assymmetric flight feathers. We have yet to find a form with
structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
20%scale/80%feather etc.
> > > Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among
> other> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
> >
> > The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds
> of organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a
wide
> > range of environments.
>
> No don't tell me what the model "teaches", tell me what the model actually
> *is*. The english language is a wonderfully versatile tool. I feel sure
> you can express it accurately and succinctly in a falsifiable form.
I've just told you what the model is. I also pointed out that genuinely
transitional structures would probably falsify it. Why the Popperianism
anyway?
> > Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of the
> > vairieties of horses in the fossil record, or the herring/lesser
> black-backed gull, are merely variants within a kind.
>
> Your description of the model will need to explain how variations are kept
> within a kind
The genetic system is wonderful at conserving variation to limits.
Experiments by breeders support a limits to variation. No,you need to show
one kind changing into another, not just producing more and more mutant
Drosophila,
> and what defines a kind: what criteria would you use to
> assign a newly discovered organism into one kind or another?
If an organism can hybridise with another, then it is likely part of the
same kind. Certainly if they can interbreed they are the same kind, even
the same 'biological species' even if they are classified as different
genera. Marsh had a criterion of ability to produce a zygote as evidence
that thery were part of the same kind. Also, if the differences between
the organisms can be achieved by selectively breeding either them or a
third organism, they are likely part of a kind. E.g. breeding from
suitable dog would eventually produce the size ranges of a Chihuahua and
Great Dane, and these two can interbreed (articficially!).
The kind would have been a biological species when created, but now the
descendants in most cases would be several species within a genus or even a
family. Dr Siegfried Scherer of Munich University has probably done the
most work on 'basic types'.
With fossil species it is clearly more subjective.
Jonathan Sarfati
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
>by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>creation!
<chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>
>Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
interesting.
of course you've never told us where we can see creation. you just
admitted evolution is a fact.
where may we see creation?
>>
>> Dawkins is just one among tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists, so
>> who cares what *he* stumbles over?
>
>The difference is that he is widely regarded as an authority by
>atheistic/agnostic skeptics, while the Pope is not an authority for
>protestants.
meaningless. he is an evolutionary biologist, not a theologian. while
his work on biology is respected, his work on philosophy depends on
the eye of the beholder, so to speak
thats one major difference between scientists and creationists.
scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or a
bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
atheist/agnostic'....etc.
>
>
>Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded by
>creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
gee so science hasnt made any progress in the 300 yrs or so these
folks lived?
yeah, that ties in with the above view of creationists about how
religion is science. religion, to creationists, doesnt change. once
you've got an answer, thats it. science changes depending on the
evidence.
thats why creationists are confused
>
>I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
>birds and mammals! The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
>with assymmetric flight feathers. We have yet to find a form with
>structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
>20%scale/80%feather etc.
we do, however, find dinosaurs with feathers, and with NO other avian
features...caudipteryx is one such animal as is protoarcheopteryx.
thus transitionals exist
>
>The genetic system is wonderful at conserving variation to limits.
>Experiments by breeders support a limits to variation. No,you need to show
>one kind changing into another, not just producing more and more mutant
>Drosophila,
meaningless. according to this definition, humans and chimps are the
same 'kind'.
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
This is the only response Camp will be providing concerning the matter.
---
In article <19981230023754...@ng109.aol.com>,
bigd...@aol.comnospam (Bigdakine) wrote:
>I looked this over.... briefly. Clearly a graduate of the Duane Gish
>school of transitional forms. If you don't have all the gaps filled,
>then you can't claim common descent.
In my opinion, this contemptuous dismissal is not a fair characterization
of the article, but others can judge that for themselves. The purpose of
the article was to suggest that the fossil evidence for the alleged
mesonychid-to-whale transition could not bear the weight being placed on it
in the popular literature (e.g., the claim that "the evolutionary case is
now closed"). To that end, I first corrected the misimpression that
mesonychids were considered to be actual ancestors of archaeocetes.
Though acknowledging that the creatures popularly portrayed as a lineage
"almost assuredly" are not, my critic considers this a trivial matter
because he believes the case for common descent can still be made
from non-lineal fossils. If the case can be made from non-lineal fossils,
then let it be made on that basis. Do not string together cartoons of
creatures designed to give the impression that they are in fact lineal
descendants. It is, of course, more difficult to make the case for
evolutionary descent from fossils that are too derived to qualify as actual
ancestors, as one can only point to a hypothetical ancestor and plead the
vagaries of fossilization, and I believe this is precisely why the matter
was glossed over.
The speculative nature of the claim of mesonychid ancestry was shown by
pointing out the very general nature of the similarities on which it was
based. Indeed, this word of caution has recently been proven sound.
Current thinking is that archaeocetes arose from artiodactyls, not
mesonychids. (There are, however, admitted morphological problems with
that theory, not to mention the fact Artiodactyla dates only from the Lower
Eocene.) What more proof does one need that prior claims about mesonychids
had been oversold?
Regarding archaeocetes, I argued that the portrayal of certain recently
discovered (relatively) archaeocetes as forming a series of stratomorphic
intermediates was questionable. This is noteworthy because it is this
arrangement that provides the impression of directional transformation
through time. (I focused on those particular creatures that were being
cited at the time as proof of the mesonychid-to-whale scenario. The
article does not purport to be an exhaustive survey of cetacean evolution.)
Again, recent finds indicate that the oldest archaeocetes were already
marine, a fact that further complicates the neat story put out for public
consumption.
The point about the allegation that archaeocetes gave rise to modern
cetaceans is simply that this is more a matter of assertion than evidence.
My critic mocks my use of Simpson's quote, suggesting it has been rendered
irrelevant by subsequent discoveries, but that is not the case.
Archaeocetes as a group were known long before 1945, so Simpson was
familiar with their features. It is with that knowledge that he opined
that they did not give rise to modern forms. He didn't say the data was
insufficient to permit a conclusion; he said, essentially, that you cannot
get to modern cetaceans from archaeocete features. And as I point out,
that was the consensus opinion until relatively recently (and there is
continuing doubt about the matter). I submit that opinions changed
regarding the acceptability of archaeocetes as ancestors for modern
cetaceans when people started to believe that no better candidate would be
found. Only then did archaeocetes start to look better as potential
ancestral stock.
So, in my view, the article raised legitimate questions about the
overselling of whale evolution in the popular press. This is not a "straw
man" because those articles did argue for mesonychid ancestry, did give the
impression of a lineage, did argue that archaeocetes are stratomorphic
intermediates, and did brush over the difficulties in getting from
archaeocetes to modern cetaceans. Clarifying these matters may strike some
as trivial, but I don't share that view.
I certainly do not claim to have rendered belief in whale evolution
irrational. The article was simply my attempt to raise some facts that
were being overlooked in the storm of publicity, facts that I thought would
help people to understand the actual state of the question.
As for the concept of "transitional forms" in general, the term originally
meant a creature that was part of the evolutionary transition from species
A to species D, so it was necessarily tied to lineage. When evolutionists
came up empty on that score, they changed the definition. (This shift was
still in process in 1984 when Cracraft wrote, "Part of the confusion
apparent *in the scientific literature* . . . I suggest, stems from the
definition of 'transitional form.') They now claim as a "transitional
form" any creature that is stratigraphically and morphologically between
any two taxa, without any regard for whether the particular species
represent a lineage. (And they sometimes take creatures that are NOT
stratigraphically intermediate and simply assume they must have been.)
This is a useful PR strategy for evolutionists because whenever John Q.
Public hears "transitional form," he still thinks "lineage."
Ashby Camp
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
> >creation!
>
> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>
> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>
>
> interesting.
One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
world's leading Darwinists discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
kind or "baramin".
Has evolution really been observed?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
---
David Buckna
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
>> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>> >creation!
>>
>> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
>> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
>> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>>
>> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>>
>> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>>
>> interesting.
>
>One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
there is no difference
>
>Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
>world's leading Darwinists discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying
>microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
>macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
>Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg 'evolution' 1992)
sorry your reference is 2 decades out of date.
>Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
>kind or "baramin".
>
>Has evolution really been observed?
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a page devoted to
christian ministries. not an objective source.
but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort evidence to
support their religious beliefs.
maff91
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
[creationist crap deleted]
Why don't you tell us why the scientific and business world should
accept the creationist model?
Why should the majority of the Christians and other religionists
accept a fundamentalist cult belief?
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Creacionismo scientÃfico: un dogma religioso que combina masiva
ignorancia con increible arrogancia.
Creacionista: (1) Una persona adepta al creacionismo. (2) Una
perosona con el mÃnimo nivel de inteligencia que aún le permite
hacer labores simples (3) Una persona que ni la grama sabe cortar.
(4) Un mentiroso o repartidor de mentiras (5) Una pesona que cree
fácilmente que lo que le cuentan es verdad.
maff91
>In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful equivocation
>> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>> >creation!
>>
>> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
>> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
>> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>>
>> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>>
>> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>>
>> interesting.
>
>One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
>
>Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation
occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time,
transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.
Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Hominids FAQ and the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.
See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.
See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
listing some more observed speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Macroevolution FAQ
In evolutionary biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any
evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the
splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time
into another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
This set of articles surveys some of the scientific literature
presenting interesting or unique lines of evidence for evolution.
Cichlid fish, sexual selection, sperm competition, and endosymbiosis
are but a few of the topics discussed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
>world's leading Darwinists discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying
>microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
>macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
>Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
Do you mean that there has been no breakthroughs in evolutionary
biology / paleoanthropology since 1980?
"Principles of Human Evolution" by Roger Lewin - Paperback - 420 pages
(January 1998) Blackwell Science Inc; ISBN: 0865425426
"The Origin of Modern Humans (Scientific American Library)" by Roger
Lewin - Paperback - 204 pages (March 1998) Scientific American
Library; ISBN: 0716760231
"Bones of Contention : Controversies in the Search for Human Origins"
by Roger Lewin - Paperback - 360 pages 2nd edition (June 1997)
University of Chicago Press; ISBN: 0226476510
"In the Age of Mankind : A Smithsonian Book of Human Evolution" by
Roger Lewin - Paperback (October 1989) Smithsonian Institution Press;
ISBN: 0895990253
"Origins Reconsidered : In Search of What Makes Us Human" by Roger
Lewin, Richard E. Leakey - Paperback Rep edition (October 1993)
Anchor; ISBN: 0385467923
"Patterns in Evolution : The New Molecular View" by Roger Lewin -
Hardcover - 246 pages (September 1996) W H Freeman & Co; ISBN:
0716750694
"The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind"
by Roger Lewin (Contributor), Richard E. Leakey - Paperback 1 Anchor
edition (November 1996) Anchor Books; ISBN: 0385468091
"Origins : What New Discoveries Reveal About the Emergence of Our
Species and Its Possible Future" by Richard Leakey, Roger Lewin -
Paperback Rep edition (October 1982) E P Dutton; ISBN: 0140153365
"Complexity : Life at the Edge of Chaos" by Roger Lewin - ASIN:
0020147953
>
>Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
>kind or "baramin".
>
>Has evolution really been observed?
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
>
>---
>
>David Buckna
So Buckna, you still haven't told us why the scientific and business
world should accept the creationist model?
Why should the majority of the Christian and other religionists accept
a fundamentalist sect belief?
What do you hope to achieve by declaring war on 99% of the world's
population?
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> On 31 Dec 1998 18:31:36 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> (Jonathan Sarfati)
> >> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
> >> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
> >> >creation!
> >>
> >> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
> >> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
> >>
> >> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
> >> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
> >> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
> >>
> >>
> >> interesting.
> >
> >One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution from microevolution.
>
>
> >
> >Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a meeting of several of the
> >microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
> >macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
> >Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
>
Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution. As was stated by
Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
creation model.
You say there is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
Really. What must the other evolutionists reading this thread think of your
statement?
>sorry your reference is 2 decades out of date.
>
>>Creationists contend that microevolution is just variation within the created
>>kind or "baramin".
>>
>>Has evolution really been observed?
>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
>
>answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a page devoted to
>christian ministries. not an objective source.
>
>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort evidence to
>support their religious beliefs.
Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a basic
understanding of the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
David Buckna
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful
equivocation
> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
> >creation!
>
> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
I'm neither American nor particularly right wing. And propagandize is
precisely what evolutionists do.
>
> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>
> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
More of this deceitful equivocation. At least Kerkut was honest enough to
differentiate the general and special theories of evolution (which I
usually call 'evolution' and 'variation' respectively). He also pointed
out that evidence for the special theory doesn't prove the general theory
-- he said that the evidence for it was not strong enough to consider it as
any more than a 'working hypothesis'.
> of course you've never told us where we can see creation. you just
> admitted evolution is a fact.
>
> where may we see creation?
In the complex design all around us. Haldane said that evolution would be
falsified by finding wheels or magnets in living organisms, as these could
not be built up gradualistically by Darwinian mechanisms. But we now know
that there are wheels (e.g. rotary motors) and magnets in living things!
> thats one major difference between scientists and creationists.
My scientific qualifications are at least as good as yours, buddy, so give
up this ridiculous caricature.
> scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or a
> bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
> science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
> atheist/agnostic'....etc.
All scientists have biases --- the question is which bias is the best bias
with which to be biased. Dawkins can't think outside his materialistic box.
> >Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded
by
> >creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
>
> gee so science hasnt made any progress in the 300 yrs or so these
> folks lived?
Umm -- your turn to make a slip -- Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin.
The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
scientific discoveriies. Most of the branches of modern science were
founded by creationists.
> yeah, that ties in with the above view of creationists about how
> religion is science. religion, to creationists, doesnt change. once
> you've got an answer, thats it. science changes depending on the
> evidence.
Rubbish. First, the creation model is different now to what it was 20
years ago. Second, you have repeatedly admitted that you will consider
only materialistic explanations.
> >I doubt that anyone says that the Platypus is a link between reptiles,
> >birds and mammals! The fact remains, Archaeopteryx was a perching bird
> >with assymmetric flight feathers. We have yet to find a form with
> >structures that are half-scale/half feather, and others with
> >20%scale/80%feather etc.
>
> we do, however, find dinosaurs with feathers, and with NO other avian
> features...caudipteryx is one such animal as is protoarcheopteryx.
> thus transitionals exist
Feduccia and Martin believe these were flightless birds, not feathered
dinosaurs. They even had gizzard stones, something theropods lacked.
> >The genetic system is wonderful at conserving variation to limits.
> >Experiments by breeders support a limits to variation. No,you need to
show
> >one kind changing into another, not just producing more and more mutant
> >Drosophila,
>
> meaningless. according to this definition, humans and chimps are the
> same 'kind'.
Ever seen a chimp evolve into a human?
Is there any more point continuing this (and I won't be able to respond
till the 15th anyway?). The bottom line is, you insist on materialistic
explanations for origins, and I don't. And you consider any 'change' as
evidence that all living things came from a single cell.
Dave Horn
<76hte9$78p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 1998 18:31:36 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >the deceitful equivocation by evolutionary propagandists.
>> >> >They provide examples of minor changes, then claim
>> >> >that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and
>> >> >against creation!
This reads like an ignorant, whining rant to me.
>> >> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism
>> >> is a cultural belief of the american right wing, most
>> >> evolutionists dont 'propagandize' evolution since there is
>> >> no need to do so.
>> >>
>> >> > (Jonathan Sarfati)
>> >> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear
>> >> >that speciation is an important part of the creation model.
I'd like to see *this* explained...
>> >> >No, it's you who must prove that
>> >> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
Since no one is claiming this, no one is obligated to "prove" it.
>> >> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>> >>
>> >> interesting.
>> >
>> >One must be careful to distinguish macroevolution
>> >from microevolution.
>>
>> there is no difference
>>
>> >
>> >Macroevolution has never been observed. In 1980, a
>> >meeting of several of the world's leading Darwinists
>> >discussed "whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution
>> >can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
>> >macroevolution." The answer was "a clear No".[Roger
>> >Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210,
>> >no. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980, p. 883]
Are you normally in the habit of reading 18 year old issues of _Science_ or
did you derive this "reference" from a creationist book or tract you have
chosen not to cite for some reason?
>> wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg
>>'evolution' 1992)
>
>
>Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution.
"Is NOT" does not qualify as a reasonable explanation. The fact is that
you're wrong. Macroevolution is generally defined as evolution at or above
the species level. Check the definition in any first-year college biology
text. Then consider that speciation is (simply put) a news species arising
from a previous species. That's macroevolution. Get over it.
>As was stated by Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post,
>speciation is an important part of the creation model.
I don't know who "Jonathan Sarfati" is and I don't much care; but if he
accepts macroevolution as properly viewed by science, then he accepts
evolution.
>You say there is no difference between macroevolution
>and microevolution? Really. What must the other evolutionists
>reading this thread think of your statement?
I believe the statement was meant for rhetorical effect, having read
previous and more expository statements of this type from the author. What
*I* am curious about is how you could miss the point -- complete with the
abbreviated reference. Did you bother to look it up?
>>sorry your reference is 2 decades out of date.
>>
>>>Creationists contend that microevolution is just
>>>variation within the created kind or "baramin".
>>>
>>>Has evolution really been observed?
>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/WebMan/Article.asp?ID=508&Count=true
>>
>>answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a
>>page devoted to christian ministries. not an objective
>>source.
>>
>>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort
>>evidence to support their religious beliefs.
>
>Baloney.
No. He's right.
>Thanks to your post we can see how you lack
>even a basic understanding of the terms macroevolution
>and microevolution.
Feel free to define the terms for us. Go ahead...
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> ]
>>
>> wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg 'evolution' 1992)
>
>
>Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution. As was stated by
>Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
>creation model.
incorrect. macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above the
level of species. i realize moving the goalposts is part of
creationism...i.e. when evolution is observed creationists say 'yeah,
but'...but 'yeah but' isnt an argument
>
>>answers in genesis is not a science webpage, but a page devoted to
>>christian ministries. not an objective source.
>>
>>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort evidence to
>>support their religious beliefs.
>
>
>Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a basic
>understanding of the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
>
>
macroevolution: 'evolution involving whole species or large groups of
organisms'
the american heritage dictionary, 2nd edition.
Wesley R. Elsberry
<jaro...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> >In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
>> > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> >> On 31 Dec 1998 14:23:58 -0500, jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[...]
DB>Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of
DB>macroevolution.
According to the definition actually used by biologists, it
is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
DB>As was stated by Jonathan Sarfati in an
DB>earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
DB>creation model.
What do the "models" of creationists have to do with whether
or not speciation events are macroevolutionary events? This
is entirely and solely dependent upon how biologists have
defined the term. And that definition shows that speciation
events are macroevolutionary events. Whether some certain
creationists recognize speciation as occurring and incorporate
that into their musings is a complete non sequitur.
DB>You say there is no difference between macroevolution and
DB>microevolution? Really. What must the other evolutionists
DB>reading this thread think of your statement?
There is a difference between macroevolution and
microevolution, but it must be noted that the terms represent
a classification of phenomena. Thus, the difference is in the
criteria by which we recognize whether a phenomenon is in one
category or the other, and not in how a phenomenon came to
have features matching one criterion or the other. The debate
over whether the processes which yield microevolutionary events
are the same processes which yield macroevolutionary events is
orthogonal to this difference.
We can go back to discussing autopolyploidy and what it means
as a process in terms of microevolution or macroevolution if
David would like.
[...]
RJP>but, thanks to your post we see how creationists distort
RJP>evidence to support their religious beliefs.
DB>Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a
DB>basic understanding of the terms macroevolution and
DB>microevolution.
A bit ironic, since David's post shows the same goes for him.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"i am going to start a revolution" - archy
wf...@enter.netxx
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
>
>In article <368bdd86...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>> >I'm not surprised. I've written elsewhere about the deceitful
>equivocation
>> >by evolutionary propagandists. They provide examples of minor changes,
>> >then claim that this makes the case for goo-to-you evolution and against
>> >creation!
>>
>> <chuckle> dont read much do you? since creationism is a cultural
>> belief of the american right wing, most evolutionists dont
>> 'propagandize' evolution since there is no need to do so.
>
>I'm neither American nor particularly right wing. And propagandize is
>precisely what evolutionists do.
really? jewish and moslem evolutionary biologists joining together as
a conspiracy against fundamentalist xtianity...hmmm...perhaps you've
discovered a method to resolve differences in the middle east!!
>>
>> >Who said I doubted speciation? I've made it clear that speciation is an
>> >important part of the creation model. No, it's you who must prove that
>> >jumping cows are moon-jumping cows.
>>
>> ah, so evolution happens, except when it doesnt.
>
>More of this deceitful equivocation. At least Kerkut was honest enough to
>differentiate the general and special theories of evolution (which I
>usually call 'evolution' and 'variation' respectively).
this is called 'moving the goalposts'. creationists admit to evolution
when they cant get out of it. observed macroevolution...like
speciation...is admitted by creationists because they cant toss out
the evidence.
unfortunately for creationists we SEE evolution. we have NEVER ONCE
seen a creation event.
..
>
>> of course you've never told us where we can see creation. you just
>> admitted evolution is a fact.
>>
>> where may we see creation?
>
>In the complex design all around us.
meaningless. thats not a mechanism. its not science. if creation
causes something to happen we should be able to see it happening, just
as you admit we do with evolution.
Haldane said that evolution would be
>falsified by finding wheels or magnets in living organisms, as these could
>not be built up gradualistically by Darwinian mechanisms. But we now know
>that there are wheels (e.g. rotary motors) and magnets in living things!
incorrect. if you can prove they werent formed by evolution you'd have
an argument. the first step would be to answer the question:
where do we see creation happening today? we SEE evolution happening.
we have NEVER seen a creation event.
answer the question.
>
>> thats one major difference between scientists and creationists.
>
>My scientific qualifications are at least as good as yours, buddy, so give
>up this ridiculous caricature.
except, of course you have no objectivity.
>
>> scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or a
>> bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
>> science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
>> atheist/agnostic'....etc.
>
>All scientists have biases
thats true. we think scientifically. thats a bias. thats why
astrology, creationism, and other superstitions are not science.
--- the question is which bias is the best bias
>with which to be biased. Dawkins can't think outside his materialistic box.
gee tell us WHICH science 'thinks outside the materialistic box'.
physics? can you cite an example in physics where magic is permitted?
creationists think their religious beliefs are scientific, so they
conceptualize science in religious terms. science is the study of
matter. that creationists think 'non-material' magical events should
be scientific just means they have a biased ideological view of
science.
>
>> >Yes, another smokescreen. Most branches of modern biology were founded
>by
>> >creationists like Ray, Linnaeus and Pasteur.
>>
>> gee so science hasnt made any progress in the 300 yrs or so these
>> folks lived?
>
>Umm -- your turn to make a slip -- Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin.
<chuckle> contemporaries rarely accept radical new theories.
>
>The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
>scientific discoveriies. Most of the branches of modern science were
>founded by creationists.
then why are there no creation scientists in existence today? if there
ARE can you name ONE SINGLE scientific paper published in a peer
reviewed journal which says the earth was 'created' or that evolution
didnt happen?
>
>> yeah, that ties in with the above view of creationists about how
>> religion is science. religion, to creationists, doesnt change. once
>> you've got an answer, thats it. science changes depending on the
>> evidence.
>
>Rubbish. First, the creation model is different now to what it was 20
>years ago. Second, you have repeatedly admitted that you will consider
>only materialistic explanations.
and tell me WHAT SCIENCE...ANY SCIENCE admits to 'non-materialistic'
explanations
what science allows magic?
>
>>
>> we do, however, find dinosaurs with feathers, and with NO other avian
>> features...caudipteryx is one such animal as is protoarcheopteryx.
>> thus transitionals exist
>
>Feduccia and Martin believe these were flightless birds, not feathered
>dinosaurs. They even had gizzard stones, something theropods lacked.
funny that
1. feduccia is not a creationist...he's an evolutionist
2. feduccia has never said caudipteryx is a flightless bird. if he HAS
please point out the reference.
>>
>> meaningless. according to this definition, humans and chimps are the
>> same 'kind'.
>
>Ever seen a chimp evolve into a human?
we have seen speciation...which you admit happens. thus evolution is a
fact
>
>Is there any more point continuing this (and I won't be able to respond
>till the 15th anyway?). The bottom line is, you insist on materialistic
>explanations for origins, and I don't.
and THAT is absolutely correct. EVERY SCIENCE is materialistic, and NO
science is NON-MATERIALISTIC. thus y ou are correct. thats why your
explanations are NOT science as you just admitted
And you consider any 'change' as
>evidence that all living things came from a single cell.
fine. tell us where we can see creation happening today like you admit
evolution does
Ric Carter
>> scientists dont have a central scripture or authority like a pope or
>> a bible. creationists cant 'think outside the box' so conceptualize
>> science in religious terms like 'he is regarded as an authority by
>> atheist/agnostic'....etc.
>
>All scientists have biases --- the question is which bias is the
>best bias with which to be biased. Dawkins can't think outside his
>materialistic box.
No, the question is: which model works best? Does an explanation that
invokes one or more infinitely-complex deities provide more useful
insights than a model comprised of finite material processes? Unless
one can *show* the utility of a deistic model, only a biased and/or
irrational person will *accept* desitic models. Since deities are by
definition unknowable to humans, doesn't acceptance of deistic models
mean that one has given up attempting to explore and understand life,
the universe, reality? Isn't anti-materialism the REAL box?
* r...@sonic.net * http://www.sonic.net/~ric * ICQ# 19633976 *
*
*** SkeptiChat: the official mailing list of the new millennium *
now featuring SkeptiNews: All The News That's Fit To Question
email INFO or SUBSCRIBE SKEPTICHAT to: majo...@lists.sonic.net
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The point is, the creationist world view was extremely fruitful for
> scientific discoveriies. Most of the branches of modern science were
> founded by creationists.
That was because they managed to separate their beliefs from their science.
Presently we see some misguided souls ignoring science in favour of creation
"science" just because their interpretation of the Word of God tells them so.
> Ever seen a chimp evolve into a human?
Yawn. Ever seen a chimp created ?
>
>
> Is there any more point continuing this (and I won't be able to respond
> till the 15th anyway?). The bottom line is, you insist on materialistic
> explanations for origins, and I don't. And you consider any 'change' as
> evidence that all living things came from a single cell.
>
And you have to deny all evidence.
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of Ashby Camp, author of
>
> The Overselling of Whale Evolution
> http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
>
> This is the only response Camp will be providing concerning the matter.
>
Of course. Ignorance of science can only hid in obscurity of non-confront.
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <368c102b...@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
> > wrong. speciation has been observed (j.r. weinberg 'evolution' 1992)
>
> Hel-lo...Speciation is _not_ an example of macroevolution. As was stated by
> Jonathan Sarfati in an earlier post, speciation is an important part of the
> creation model.
>
Ignorance of fact is not an excuse.
> You say there is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
> Really. What must the other evolutionists reading this thread think of your
> statement?
That he is likely to be correct.
> Baloney. Thanks to your post we can see how you lack even a basic
> understanding of the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
>
ROTFL. Don't project ... The irony is killingme
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <19981228155108...@ng110.aol.com>,
bigd...@aol.comnospam (Bigdakine) wrote:
> >Exactly. There should be no series demonstratingstructures that are 90%
> >scale:10% feather, then 80% scale:20% feather .... 10% scale:90 feather.
All
> >we find are series which are nothing more than reproducible variation
within
> >a kind, or 'curious mosaics' like Archaeopteryx and Ornithorhyncus
(playtpus)
> >which have a mixture of traits, none of which are transitional.
> >
> >> Please state a falsifiable theory of creationism, that can - among
other
> >> things - incorporate a "handful of examples" of transitional forms.
> >
> >The biblical creationist model teaches that God created distinct kinds of
> >organisms with immense genetic variability so they could adapt to a wide
> >range of environments. Some so-called transitional forms, e.g. many of
> the
> >vairieties of horses in the fossil record
> > or the herring/lesser black-backed
> >gull, are merely variants within a kind.
>
> First define "kind". This what I mean by definition, Species - A
population of
> organisms which can breed with each other but are reproductively isolated
from
> other populations (aka BSC).
You do realise that there are other definitions of the term 'species'?
Also, do you realise that many organisms which are classified as different
'species' and even different 'genera' are actually the same species by that
definition.
> Give a similar definition of kind. Don't give
> examples..., a definition. Thanx..
A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to realy foul things up
> requires a creationist"
To foul things up good and proper really requires evolutionists to apply
their own philosophy of trying to make things by time and random processes.
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <76gvpk$gtc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>The following is posted on behalf of Ashby Camp, author of
>
>The Overselling of Whale Evolution
>http://www.firinn.org/trueorigin/whales.htm
>
>This is the only response Camp will be providing concerning the matter.
>
>---
>
>In article <19981230023754...@ng109.aol.com>,
> bigd...@aol.comnospam (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
>>I looked this over.... briefly. Clearly a graduate of the Duane Gish
>>school of transitional forms. If you don't have all the gaps filled,
>>then you can't claim common descent.
>
Interesting he chose to reply to me, instead of other, much more detailed
posts, but so be it... J. Ackers recent post (Message-id:
<1998123118...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>) gives many details and I see no
need to repeat them here.
>
>In my opinion, this contemptuous dismissal is not a fair characterization
>of the article, but others can judge that for themselves. The purpose of
>the article was to suggest that the fossil evidence for the alleged
>mesonychid-to-whale transition could not bear the weight being placed on it
>in the popular literature (e.g., the claim that "the evolutionary case is
>now closed"). To that end, I first corrected the misimpression that
>mesonychids were considered to be actual ancestors of archaeocetes.
We're not sure what land mammals they came from. BFD. Nonetheless a number of
recent fossils have turned up, within close temporal proximity, that show
changes in features that could be construed as steps along an evolutionary
pathway from land mammals to aquatic mammals.
>
>Though acknowledging that the creatures popularly portrayed as a lineage
>"almost assuredly" are not, my critic considers this a trivial matter
>because he believes the case for common descent can still be made
>from non-lineal fossils.
You also used the qualifier "direct", Or do you not remember what you write in
your own essays? By direct and linear I assume you meant that these
transitional series represent a direct line of succesion, i.e., they form a
single chain of descent. I figure thats unlikely. Evolution is not simply a
chain, it is often "bushy". Whether or not ambulocetus is a direct ancestor of
modern whales I do not know. I would only theorize that it is related to an
animal that was...
If the case can be made from non-lineal fossils,
>then let it be made on that basis.
It can.
Do not string together cartoons of
>creatures designed to give the impression that they are in fact lineal
>descendants.
Why not? Given a jigsaw puzzle, I shouldn't try to put it togethar? Isn't this
what science does? You take a set of observations and develop a theory based on
those observations. Maybe you don't understand science? The point is they
represent steps along an evolutionary pathway.... Can they not be interpreted
in that sense? That is a scientific theory. You don't have to agree with it,
but to claim this can't be the case because we can't proove they're direct
descendents makes little sense to me...
It is, of course, more difficult to make the case for
>evolutionary descent from fossils that are too derived to qualify as actual
>ancestors, as one can only point to a hypothetical ancestor and plead the
>vagaries of fossilization, and I believe this is precisely why the matter
>was glossed over.
Horse hockey. The alternative is to refuse to acknowledge the philosophical
conundrum one is presented with, i.e., well if they're not related by common
descent, its awful odd that there exists a number of fossils showing steps in
what can be interpreted as an evolutionary sequence, even though "there isn't
one". I mean what is the scientific alternative? Clearly the scientific theory
that makes the most sense is the one that posits common descent. What you
glossed over was an essential point of the matter. Again my criticism was
valid, I said in essence that because we don't have all the fossils, you claim
we can't make the case for common descent. This is exactly your point in the
above paragraph and its wrong.
>
<snippage, sorry I don't have time to respond to everything now..>
>
>As for the concept of "transitional forms" in general, the term originally
>meant a creature that was part of the evolutionary transition from species
>A to species D, so it was necessarily tied to lineage. When evolutionists
>came up empty on that score, they changed the definition. (This shift was
>still in process in 1984 when Cracraft wrote, "Part of the confusion
>apparent *in the scientific literature* . . . I suggest, stems from the
>definition of 'transitional form.') They now claim as a "transitional
>form" any creature that is stratigraphically and morphologically between
>any two taxa, without any regard for whether the particular species
>represent a lineage.
And for good reason. All that is necessary of TOE to remain viable is to show
that animals with transitional characteristics are biologically possible.
Second even if it could be demonstrated that they are in the correct temporal
sequence, this does not "proove" they are a direct line of descent...
> (And they sometimes take creatures that are NOT
>stratigraphically intermediate and simply assume they must have been.)
Not quite, they posit a theory which states that they are related to an animal
which was intermediate. A theory which is testable with future fossil finds...
>This is a useful PR strategy for evolutionists because whenever John Q.
>Public hears "transitional form," he still thinks "lineage."
>
Not nearly as useful as your strategy, which is to claim that since we can't
proove the unproovable ( we can't "proove" direct descent in the fossil record
under any circumstance) we can't make the case that any fossil represents a
transitional form...
Stuart
>
>Ashby Camp
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Genesis (Australia):
---
In article <768gn8$hud$2...@garfield.vcn.bc.ca>,
ske...@efn.org (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Lee Spetner discusses antibiotic resistance in his book, "Not By
> Chance!",
> > as well as some other examples of mutations.
>
> I havent a copy of this book, but I'd like to comment on the quoted
> passage.
>
> > All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
> > out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.
>
> Patently untrue. For a start, since the genetic code is redundant, a
> significant proportion of point mutations have absolutely *no* effect on
> the amino acid constitution of the encoded protein. How can this be said
to be
> a "reduction" in genetic information?
I actually discuss neutral mutations in my critique of Dawkins' 'Climbing
Mt. Improbable' -- see the True Origins archive. For brevity, as Dawkins
does himself in 'The Blind Watchmaker', I was concentrating on mutations
that make a difference.
> Secondly, genetic change is simply that, change. Any assignment of loss or
> gain of information is a subjective judgement, and is context dependant.
> For example, if an enzyme becomes more specific to a single substrate, one
> researcher might say it has *lost* its "generalist" capabilities, whilst
> another might say it has *gained* in specificity: it often boils down to a
> matter of perspective (and, sadly, bias in some cases...)
This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a reaction
in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well as
their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that loss
of specificity is loss of information.
Are we going to return to such nonsensical ideas that an organism gains
information for wingless or blindness?
>
> A general note on the text, a lot of which is snipped for brevity. The
> most recent reference quoted was 1981, but the vast majority of those
quoted
> were in the early 70s. Molecular biology is an incredibly fast-moving
subject,
> and the "state of the art" in the 70's is primitive compared to the
> knowledge and techniques available today.
Indeed it is. We know that the design is even more fantastic than we
thought 20-30 years ago.
> Twenty years on from this paper, drug companies today are producing
> antibiotics by massive screening programmes of artificially manufactured
> chemicals never before seen in nature, and by molecular design techniques.
> And yet, we still see resistance against these entirely novel biocides.
> How can these forms of resistance have arisen, if not via mutational
events?
By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
confuse you with the facts.
>
> One might also ask in passing how the resistance against the naturally
> occuring antibiotics cited came about in the first place.
>
> > Bacteria that are not resistant can become resistant through infection
> by a
> > virus that carries the gene for resistance. The virus may have picked up
> > the gene from a naturally resistant bacterium. Also, bacteria can be
> > deliberately made resistant by artificially introducing into their DNA
> the
> > gene encoding the enzyme. Scientists today can transfer sections of DNA
> > from one organism to another.
>
> All true.
>
> > The gaining of antibiotic resistance in this
> > way is not an example of how evolution might add information. The genome
> >of the bacterium that acquired the resistance does indeed gain
information.
> > But there is no gain for life as a whole. The resistant gene already
> > existed in some other bacterium or virus.
>
> Since when has evolution been considered as a change of "life as a
> whole"?!
>
> If an antibiotic gene enters a bacterial population, then that populations
> has evolved, as per the definition of evolution as used by scientists (as
> opposed to creationists).
Again, more blatantly dishonest word magic (and again, given the lack of
moral foundation in an evolutionary world view, why should we be
surprised?). There are plenty of creationists who have advanced science
degrees and perform scientific research, so are scientists by any
reasonable definition free from atheistic bigotry.
Of course, no-one disputes that organisms change over time. But
creationists reasonably dispute whether observed changes can be
exrtapolated to goo-to-you evolution. Acquiring the information for
resistance from another organism obviously doesn't prove that the
information arose by mutations and selection.
> The lost performance is compensated for by the fact that the host *isn't
> dead*. When a driver slows down on icy roads, are they showing a lack of
> information by not travelling flat out, or are they displaying *more*
> information through their caution?
No-one disputes that some mutations are *beneficial*. Creationists deny
that such beneficial mutations have anything to do with particles-to-people
evolution.
Jonathan Sarfati
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a reaction
>in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well as
>their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that loss
>of specificity is loss of information.
and CHANGE of specificity is?
>
>
>Indeed it is. We know that the design is even more fantastic than we
>thought 20-30 years ago.
>
except, of course, designers are no closer to any remotely scientific
approach to design than they were 20 yrs ago...or 200 yrs ago when it
was first proposed
>
>By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
>won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
>confuse you with the facts.
so all the world's scientists are atheists because we all accept
evolution?
interesting.
>>
>>
>> If an antibiotic gene enters a bacterial population, then that populations
>> has evolved, as per the definition of evolution as used by scientists (as
>> opposed to creationists).
>
>Again, more blatantly dishonest word magic (and again, given the lack of
>moral foundation in an evolutionary world view, why should we be
>surprised?). There are plenty of creationists who have advanced science
>degrees and perform scientific research, so are scientists by any
>reasonable definition free from atheistic bigotry.
really? please name us, please ONE reference from ANY peer reviewed
journal ANYWHERE in the world that says creation is science or that
evolution DIDNT happen
the only problem with 'creation science' is creation scientists. they
are totally silent about any science connected with it.
>
>Of course, no-one disputes that organisms change over time. But
>creationists reasonably dispute whether observed changes can be
>exrtapolated to goo-to-you evolution.
and their mechanism is? oh....i forgot...magic
yes, i can see how 'abracadabra' is science to fundamentalists
>
>No-one disputes that some mutations are *beneficial*. Creationists deny
>that such beneficial mutations have anything to do with particles-to-people
>evolution.
>
yes i know. creationists deny science ALTOGETHER because they have NO
science to speak of so think science doesnt exist.
Matt Silberstein
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
[snip]
>A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
>ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
>isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
>
How would we determine which creation week ancestor a particular
organism descends from? If go by reproductive isolation, then (almost)
all modern biologically identified species are distinct kinds. But we
know that there are cases where multiple modern species have an
ancestor population in common. This suggests that your definition of
kind does represent any real-world category.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to
keep a man in everlasting ignorance, that principle is contempt
prior to investigation."
Herbert Spencer
Bigdakine
>Date: 1/1/99 2:27 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <19990101193724...@ng26.aol.com>
Upon re reading the essay I couldn't find "direct" used by Camp. What he did
use was chain of descent which I interpreted as "direct"...
Apologies,
Stuart
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <76jpj8$j5o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
>Genesis (Australia):
>
>---
Sure do, thats why the parenthetical statement aka BSC...
>Also, do you realise that many organisms which are classified as different
>'species' and even different 'genera' are actually the same species by that
>definition.
What do you mean? Do you mean that some species classified phentically might
not be seperate when classified by BSC? So...?
>
>> Give a similar definition of kind. Don't give
>> examples..., a definition. Thanx..
>
>A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
>ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
>isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
But given that most if not all members of a kind can't reproduce with each
other, this definition makes absolutely no sense at all.....
What are the criteria for deciding on what "kind" an animal belongs too?
Stuart
>
>> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
>> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
>> "To err is human, but to realy foul things up
>> requires a creationist"
>
>To foul things up good and proper really requires evolutionists to apply
>their own philosophy of trying to make things by time and random processes.
Is selection random?
Indeed, evolution has produced such noted foul ups as the upisde down
vertebrate retina. Making things by time, selection and random chance is bound
to produce some obvious flaws. Of course one could always argue that it is the
direct handiwork of an omnipotent God, who is just trying to fool us...
>
>
>Jonathan Sarfati
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pim van Meurs
jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Secondly, genetic change is simply that, change. Any assignment of loss or
> > gain of information is a subjective judgement, and is context dependant.
> > For example, if an enzyme becomes more specific to a single substrate, one
> > researcher might say it has *lost* its "generalist" capabilities, whilst
> > another might say it has *gained* in specificity: it often boils down to a
> > matter of perspective (and, sadly, bias in some cases...)
>
> This is word magic. Enzymes are catalysts, i.e. they speed up a reaction
> in the direction is would go anyway. The advantage of enzymes, as well as
> their efficiency, is their specificity. Spetner justifiably says that loss
> of specificity is loss of information.
>
Other than that he does not justify it.
> Are we going to return to such nonsensical ideas that an organism gains
> information for wingless or blindness?
Are we going to continue with the nonsensical idea of loss of information when
such has not been quantified ?
>
> Indeed it is. We know that the design is even more fantastic than we
> thought 20-30 years ago.
>
Fantasy is the right word to describe design
>
> By creation. Oh, I keep forgetting -- materialistic/atheistic bigotry
> won't let you consider such an explanation, so there's no point trying to
> confuse you with the facts.
What facts...
> Again, more blatantly dishonest word magic (and again, given the lack of
> moral foundation in an evolutionary world view, why should we be
> surprised?). There are plenty of creationists who have advanced science
Ad hominem....
> degrees and perform scientific research, so are scientists by any
> reasonable definition free from atheistic bigotry.
TOo bad that few do creation "science".
>
sregoR .M divaD
>
> The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
> Genesis (Australia):
SNIP
> A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
> ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
> isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
This does not answer the question substantially, as all you are doing is
referencing another unknown. Unless, of course, you are saying that the
'beasts of the field' all constitute a single kind, and the 'birds of
the air' another...
But I doubt it. I also doubt that you have anything really substantial
to offer as to what those created 'kinds' might originally have been.
This is one of the problems of trying to do do 'revelatory science.'
--
The Young American
==================================================
You can trust the Americans to do the right thing,
after they have tried every other alternative.
- Winston Churchill, 1941
Boikat
>
> jaro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > The following is posted on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Answers in
> > Genesis (Australia):
>
> SNIP
>
> > A biblical 'kind' is a set of all organisms descended from a common
> > ancestor which was created during Creation Week, and are reproductively
> > isolated from organisms of all other 'kinds'.
>
> This does not answer the question substantially, as all you are doing is
> referencing another unknown. Unless, of course, you are saying that the
> 'beasts of the field' all constitute a single kind, and the 'birds of
> the air' another...
>
> But I doubt it. I also doubt that you have anything really substantial
> to offer as to what those created 'kinds' might originally have been.
> This is one of the problems of trying to do do 'revelatory science.'
> --
>
Not to mention, depending upon what a "Created
Kind" is, the evidence for the explosive
diversification that we see today, that would have
had to happen after the supposed Flood.
Boikat