Jump to content


Photo

Antibiotic Resistance


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#61 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:28 PM

Great, so you agree that a mutation can lead to an increase in novel information.

I believe this is a mischaracterization of his position given the final part of his point concerning mutations and information. In fact, mischaracterizations such as this is equivalent to wasting his time.


What is to stop a series of small steps accumulating into a major change?

View Post

The observed limits of evolution.

#62 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 March 2011 - 02:26 PM

I believe this is a mischaracterization of his position given the final part of his point concerning mutations and information. In fact, mischaracterizations such as this is equivalent to wasting his time.
The observed limits of evolution.

View Post


Very good answer, fella. Evolutionists would have us believe that there are no barriers or limits but they cannot demonstrate that true evolution from one type of organism into another identifiably, classifiably different organism has ever occurred.

They can do this:

Posted Image

But they cannot do this:

Posted Image

Or even this much:

Posted Image

What should be easy as done blindly by nature (so they tell us) cannot be done in the lab.

So the obvious question then is: if nature can evolve the whole world from molecues to man by blind natural processes without even thinking about it...then why can't the most brilliant scientists on earth do the same thing by intelligent choice in genetic engineering?

#63 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 07 March 2011 - 06:37 PM

The observed limits of evolution.

View Post


Which is what? That evolution has only thrown out a finite amount of phenotypes and that we do not observe every imaginable morphology?

Every marathon is a sequence of steps; so it must be with evolutionary change unless you can think of a barrier.

I believe this is a mischaracterization of his position given the final part of his point concerning mutations and information. In fact, mischaracterizations such as this is equivalent to wasting his time.



I stand by that argument. You have failed to show me even one instance of novel information. Any mutation is interchanged DNA or genes are deleted. No mutation results from an increase of information. New functions do not equate to new information. It has also been shown that in order to gain a new function, another function has to be lost. This is a serious issue for darwinism as it is a strong indication that evolution has limits.

I have asked to see a genome that has novel information, even though you have provided a lot of conjecture, you have not shown me anything conclusive. I want you to provide to me straight up, a genome that has novel information.


I've said that gene duplication + subsequent mutation in a copy = increase of novel info on the genome (how can it not?). You don't dispute that mutations can happen and in post 54 I linked to an observed example of gene duplication. In post 43 I mention the Antarctic Ice Fish, an example of where a duplicated gene has subsequently mutated (therefore an increase in novel info on the genome)and benefitted the host. The human genome is comprised of about 3 billion microscopic bases - how can I show you a genome?

I have given empirical examples and self-evident logic to show that gene duplication (observed) and subsequently a mutation (observed) = increase in novel info on the genome. In response you post mysterious comments like "no mutation results from an increase of information", nonsense about "back burners" and continually try to swing the conversation to abiogenesis. If time wasting has taken place on this thread it has not been by me.

#64 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 March 2011 - 07:03 PM

Which is what?  That evolution has only thrown out a finite amount of phenotypes and that we do not observe every imaginable morphology?

Every marathon is a sequence of steps; so it must be with evolutionary change unless you can think of a barrier.


I said it above. Scientists observe change and can make changes (usually harmful) on a lower, limited level but the fish are still fish, the bacteria are still bacteria, and moths are still moths.

If evolution has 'THROWN OUT' a finite amount of phenotypes (about 1.4 million according to Biodiverstity) with all its various kinds representing the family tree of life accidentally then why can't intelligent engineers demonstrate what nature did blindly?

It ought to be easy to prove.

#65 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:00 PM

Arguing that there are limits to what evolution can achieve is quite different to the claim that natural processes such as mutations cannot lead to an increase of novel information on the genome.

It does not follow that because one cannot breed a house-sized pig that extant life on Earth could not have slowly evolved from a common ancestor.It takes intelligence to create artificial objects but how are you quantifying "complex"?

View Post



Actually yes it does follow on and is very logical in its conclusion.

If there are limits to what size and shape a species can undertake then evolution from a single celled organism to a human is impossible.

Having limits WITHIN a species ensures that evolution could never occur. Yes things can variate, yet they cannot change beyond their species limit... ie- bacteria will always remain bacteria.. perhaps variating into another form of bacteria.. but they are still bacteria nevertheless.

If things could change beyond their species limits then you'd possibly see a human born with operational gills, or could you find a dog with operational wings... Such changes are beyond the species limit for its genome and guess what... these are never observed.

#66 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:18 PM

I've said that gene duplication + subsequent mutation in a copy = increase of novel info on the genome (how can it not?).  You don't dispute that mutations can happen and in post 54 I linked to an observed example of gene duplication.  In post 43 I mention the Antarctic Ice Fish, an example of where a duplicated gene has subsequently mutated (therefore an increase in novel info on the genome)and benefitted the host.  The human genome is comprised of about 3 billion microscopic bases - how can I show you a genome?


View Post


The Antarctic fish is another example of genetic information going backwards, but having a positive result.


One of the best evidences for gene duplication is the arctic fish (nonothenoids). In the arctic, salt water temperature goes below freezing point of the blood of this fish. Why doesn’t the fish’s blood freeze? Ice needs a crystal seed to start; once a seed is started the tiny crystals form rapidly. These fish have evolved, by gene duplication, an antifreeze which sticks to the seed crystals and prevents them from growing. These antifreeze proteins are similar to this fish’s digestive enzyme. Both portions had a certain 9 letter sequence, but in the antifreeze gene the 9-nucleotide region was repeated may times. When the digestive enzyme was copied, the process stuttered, creating multiple copies. Later these duplicate genes had a further deletion mutation which created a stable antifreeze protein(s) that gave this arctic fish a competitive advantage.

Looks good so far, but this example also underscores the limits of random mutation rather than its potential. It turns out that the antifreeze protein in Antarctic fish is not really a discrete structure comparable to, say, hemoglobin. Hemoglobin and almost all other proteins are coded by single genes that produce proteins of definite length. This mutation looks like genetic junk: There are multiple genes of different lengths, all of which produce amino acid chains that get chopped up into smaller fragments of differing lengths. In fact, the Antarctic protein appears not to have any definitive structure. Its amino acid chain is floppy and unfolded, unlike the very precisely folded shapes of most proteins. Nor do these proteins interact with other proteins and they are not building new molecular machinery or systems.


The questions I have about gene duplication are:
1. Isn’t gene duplication usually genetic junk that causes problems and not solutions, like Huntington’s disease?
2. Doesn’t DNA show a high degree of complexity or aperiodicity, not redundant order like what you would expect to see with gene duplication?
3. Is taking a digestive enzymes and chopping it upindiscriminately an increase in genetic information.

The post was taken fromhere

#67 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:27 PM

By complex lifeforms I define it as any form of life. Even one molecule is more complicated than a space shuttle. That is complex. Do you think that a space shuttle is not a complex machine? 

View Post


For sure space shuttles are complex and cells more so - the difference is that we know shuttles are made complex whereas living things are born. Evolution has the potential for organisms to become increasingly complex over generations so complexity in a living thing need not be evidence of design. Early self-replication would have been far less complex than, say, bacteria and just seem like organic chemistry reactions.

#68 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:36 PM

Great, so you agree that a mutation can lead to an increase in novel information .
What's to stop a series of small steps accumulating into a major change?

View Post


Because small changes do not amount to large changes, its pretty simple. So much has to happen to get the large change You are talking about and the small changes will not cut it. You can not combine all the small changes to get one big one, it does not work that way.

#69 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:50 PM

If there are limits to what size and shape a species can undertake then evolution from a single celled organism to a human is impossible.

Having limits WITHIN a species ensures that evolution could never occur. Yes things can variate, yet they cannot change beyond their species limit... ie- bacteria will always remain bacteria.. perhaps variating into another form of bacteria.. but they are still bacteria nevertheless.


There are limits to how tall humans, for instance, can get as height places stress on our current circulatory system. If humans had extra pumping strength such as that found in a giraffe's neck then the height limit would be raised. There may be a limit to how big you can quickly breed a pig but not necessarily so if that pig had different morphology or internal constitution (either which could potentially be bred or have evolved). The limits to what rapid artificial selection can achieve do not place limits on what slow evolution could achieve (and again there would have to be some reason prohibiting small changes accumulating into larger leaps). You only have to look at dogs to see how many different directions a species can take (in this case due to artificial selection) - yes, they are still dogs because they are effectively a ring species; "dog" (or its translation) was what we called them before we started breeding them.

Bacteria will always remain bacteria so long as the term "bacteria" is unable to discriminate between the small changes observed during our lifetime.

If things could change beyond their species limits then you'd possibly see a human born with operational gills, or could you find a dog with operational wings... Such changes are beyond the species limit for its genome and guess what... these are never observed.

View Post


A dog with wings would contradict the small changes from generation to generation and slow evolution that the TOE predicts.

#70 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:52 PM

Because small changes do not amount to large changes, its pretty simple. So much has to happen to get the large change You are talking about and the small changes will not cut it. You can not combine all the small changes to get one big one, it does not work that way.

View Post


Why could small changes not accumulate into larger differences?

#71 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:58 PM

I said it above. Scientists observe change and can make changes (usually harmful) on a lower, limited level but the fish are still fish, the bacteria are still bacteria, and moths are still moths.


Bacteria will always remain bacteria and fish stay fish so long as the terms "bacteria" and "fish" are unable to discriminate between the small changes observed during our lifetime.

If evolution has 'THROWN OUT' a finite amount of phenotypes (about 1.4 million according to Biodiverstity) with all its various kinds representing the family tree of life accidentally then why can't intelligent engineers demonstrate what nature did blindly?

It ought to be easy to prove.

View Post


We can engineer what nature did blindly: artificial slection such as domestic breeding. We haven't had as long as nature.

#72 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:13 PM

Looks good so far, but this example also underscores the limits of random mutation rather than its potential. It turns out that the antifreeze protein in Antarctic fish is not really a discrete structure comparable to, say, hemoglobin. Hemoglobin and almost all other proteins are coded by single genes that produce proteins of definite length. This mutation looks like genetic junk: There are multiple genes of different lengths, all of which produce amino acid chains that get chopped up into smaller fragments of differing lengths. In fact, the Antarctic protein appears not to have any definitive structure. Its amino acid chain is floppy and unfolded, unlike the very precisely folded shapes of most proteins. Nor do these proteins interact with other proteins and they are not building new molecular machinery or systems.


If the mutation affords this anti-freeze then it can't be said to be junk. It is still beneficial even if it does not appear comparable to hemoglobin or has an unusual structure.

The questions I have about gene duplication are:
1. Isn’t gene duplication usually genetic junk that causes problems and not solutions, like Huntington’s disease?


I don't know. It may be that we are more aware of specifically detrimental duplications due to their being studied by medical science. If a duplicate mutates into a beneficial genotype it wouldn't be junk.

2. Doesn’t DNA show a high degree of complexity or aperiodicity, not redundant order like what you would expect to see with gene duplication?


Would gene duplication lead to redundant order? Becuase duplicates are initially exempt from selective pressure they can potentially mutate without perilling the host; such mutations may then not appear as duplicates of other genes so the DNA wouldn't appear ordered.

3.  Is taking a digestive enzymes and chopping it upindiscriminately an increase in genetic information.

View Post


The duplication wouldn't affect the digestive enzymes - there would just be two or more copies coding for the same thing. Subsequent mutations of a a copy could code for something new in addition to the digestive enzyme which remains unaffected.

#73 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:58 AM

If the mutation affords this anti-freeze then it can't be said to be junk.  It is still beneficial even if it does not appear comparable to hemoglobin or has an unusual structure.

View Post


True some of the new proteins are not junk and they serve a purpose. The antifreeze proteins vary significantly but have on common theme. They bond like a surfactant bonds. One end of the chopped up chain is hydrophobic and the other end is hydrophilic. They vary in length and some of the chopped up digestive enzymes that do not act as surfactants are junk. The point is that mutation is taking a sophisticated enzymes and chopping them up. Although this is helpful, they bind to ice crystals before ice particle "mass morphs" into ice crystal, it is not a mutation that is building toward anything useful. It is a loss of genetic information which has a positive effect.

I don't know.  It may be that we are more aware of specifically detrimental duplications due to their being studied by medical science.  If a duplicate mutates into a beneficial genotype it wouldn't be junk.
Would gene duplication lead to redundant order?  Becuase duplicates are initially exempt from selective pressure they can potentially mutate without perilling the host; such mutations may then not appear as duplicates of other genes so the DNA wouldn't appear ordered.
The duplication wouldn't affect the digestive enzymes - there would just be two or more copies coding for the same thing.  Subsequent mutations of a a copy could code for something new in addition to the digestive enzyme which remains unaffected.

View Post


Points to consider.

1. Polyploidy is mostly seen in plants especially grasses. It is very rare in the animal kingdom.

2. Duplicated genes often share the load. One part does some of what the original did and the other half does the rest. One gene isn't usually left to do its own thing. So there ends up being a shared fate between duplicated genes.

3. Natural selection is a mechanism that can be used to filter in good mutations and filter out bad mutations. Without a filter, the mutated duplicated genes are left to just random chance where the odds of something useful being created is beyond reasonable chance.

4. Extra genetic material comes with an energy cost (i.e. maintaining and duplicating the DNA) to the organism. This is detrimental and natural selection whats to remove this unused genetic material.

5. There is no proof that gene duplication followed by mutations add genetic information.

#74 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 08 March 2011 - 01:05 AM

Why could small changes not accumulate into larger differences?

View Post


Because we do not observe it happening, all we observe is small changes within different kinds of lifeforms. If you want to speculate that all the small changes can amount to one big change, that is fine. Just as long as we all know You are only speculating.

#75 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 March 2011 - 07:57 AM

Bacteria will always remain bacteria and fish stay fish so long as the terms "bacteria" and "fish" are unable to discriminate between the small changes observed during our lifetime.


Really? Then where are the observable changes, that is, the stages of development from bacteria to lice, aphids, or some other tiny organism that it supposedly evolved into?

Hint:

Posted Image

We can engineer what nature did blindly: artificial slection such as domestic breeding.  We haven't had as long as nature.

View Post


No, you can't. Scientists cannot change one organism into an identifiably/classifiably different organism and you know it.

The limitations that God imposed upon the biological world are there but you and those of your persuasion refuse to acknowledge those limitations.

Question; Why does THIS work genetically:

Posted Image
A liger (lion crossed with a tiger)

But this doesn't:

Posted Image
A lamb with a human.

Answer: family/kind. The limitations that God imposed upon nature in Genesis 1. There is really nothing you can do about it.

Mendel said it: "Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel, 1866, pp. 36, 46, 47).

But you would rather believe Darwin and his subjective 'science' over Mendel and his objective, observable conclusions.

#76 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 08 March 2011 - 10:36 AM

Which is what?  That evolution has only thrown out a finite amount of phenotypes and that we do not observe every imaginable morphology?

Are you seriously asserting that evolution does not have limits? Please think carefully. I'm giving you a chance to back away before you get embarrassed, because I'm a really nice guy.

Every marathon is a sequence of steps; so it must be with evolutionary change unless you can think of a barrier.

You have criticized others for using examples that you say have nothing to do with evolution. You have just done the very same thing.

I've said that gene duplication + subsequent mutation in a copy = increase of novel info on the genome (how can it not?).

If you believe that this accounts for novel info on the genome, then why are scientists hard pressed to answer this question? Think back to abiogenesis. If a replicating gene did arise and gene duplication was the only means of mutating, there would not be enough information on that genome to explain the variety of life by tinkering,interchanging, or deleting genes.

You don't dispute that mutations can happen and in post 54 I linked to an observed example of gene duplication.  In post 43 I mention the Antarctic Ice Fish, an example of where a duplicated gene has subsequently mutated (therefore an increase in novel info on the genome)and benefitted the host.  The human genome is comprised of about 3 billion microscopic bases - how can I show you a genome?

So you define beneficial mutations as an increase of information? Is this really what you are implying?

I have no trouble finding pictures of the genome online. However, I do have A LOT of trouble finding a genome with increased/novel information online. Hmm, why would that be?


I have given empirical examples and self-evident logic to show that gene duplication (observed) and subsequently a mutation (observed) = increase in novel info on the genome.  In response you post mysterious comments like "no mutation results from an increase of information", nonsense about "back burners" and continually try to swing the conversation to abiogenesis.  If time wasting has taken place on this thread it has not been by me.

View Post

I didn't intentionally mischaracterized someone's position as you have. I have not shown hypocrisy by using arguments that I disputed against in other threads as you have. If you believe that I am a "time waster" then you are alone on this forum. However, feel free to report any of my posts to an admin.

Abiogenesis is the clearest way to show how gene duplication can not explain the variety we see of the environment today. If you dispute this, then you do not understand gene duplication at all. The first gene would not have enough information to result in the variety of life that we have today. There was no information present on their genome to cause wings to grow, or legs to grow, etc. We do not see any benefits gained by an organism that was not the result of information that was already there or deleted. Therefore, if we apply these observations to abiogenesis we can easily see that one gene would not be able to produce all of the variety of life that is present today. If you do not understand then I don't know what to tell you, but all of these people who believe in a "fairy tale" seem to understand it.

#77 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 08 March 2011 - 11:04 AM

Early self-replication would have been far less complex than, say, bacteria and just seem like organic chemistry reactions.

View Post

I find the fact that you believe early self-replication is less complex yet you avoid arguing about replication at the origin of life quote ironic.

#78 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 08 March 2011 - 03:19 PM

Because we do not observe it happening, all we observe is small changes within different kinds of lifeforms. If you want to speculate that all the small changes can amount to one big change, that is fine. Just as long as we all know You are only speculating.

View Post


We don't observe the major morphological changes of long-term evolution occuring because such processes occur in the long-term. We have every reason to believe that small changes can accumulate if no one can suggest a reason why not and in light of the observations that support long-term evolution - phylogeny, the distribution of specimens through specific layers etc.

#79 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 08 March 2011 - 03:36 PM

So you define beneficial mutations as an increase of information? Is this really what you are implying?


No, obviously a beneficial mutation is one that leads to a trait that benefits the host. I have continually said that gene duplication (observed) and subsequently a mutation (observed) = increase in novel info on the genome. That the ice fish demonstrates both an increase in novel info that also leads to a beneficial muatation makes it an interesting example.

Are you seriously asserting that evolution does not have limits? Please think carefully. I'm giving you a chance to back away before you get embarrassed, because I'm a really nice guy.

You have criticized others for using examples that you say have nothing to do with evolution. You have just done the very same thing...
If you do not understand then I don't know what to tell you, but all of these people who believe in a "fairy tale" seem to understand it.

View Post


You have given up debating about an increase in novel information and resorted to unsubstantiated accusations of hypocrisy, mischaracterization and cryptic comments about how I am going to embarrass myself. The comment about "fairytale" is particularly ridiculous given that the very name of this website is an example of creationists calling evolution a fairytale. If you have no further arguments that novel info cannot increase on the genome (and not trying to swing the debate to abiogenesis or undefined limits to evolution) then it seems the discussion has run its course.

#80 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 08 March 2011 - 04:00 PM

We don't observe the major morphological changes of long-term evolution occuring because such processes occur in the long-term.  We have every reason to believe that small changes can accumulate if no one can suggest a reason why not and in light of the observations that support long-term evolution - phylogeny, the distribution of specimens through specific layers etc.

View Post


Yes You can believe it but we all know belief and scientific facts are two separate things. The specific layers You speak of does not show one kind of life form turning into another and everyone that is presented is not proof of it, just a belief that it is. Just like we don't observe it in the present, we surely don't see it in the rocks. The excuse that it takes a long time is a pretty weak excuse. Eons of time does not solve all problems.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users