21 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiYou're right. I was combining a number of different things people have said into a blanket phrase "information cannot increase without intelligent intervention". The particular quote I chose claims only that mutations cannot 'produce new information'.
I disagree. If the argument is correct, then all it says is genetic mutations are not a mechanism for TOE. If it is invalid, it's claim is inconclusive. (Meaning the conclusion may be correct, but the argument does not support the concl ...[text shortened]... zed.
What do you think the author means by "new information"?
What do I think the author means by 'new information'? I think he's referring to a non rigorous, intuitive feeling he has. He looks at a horse, and he looks at an ameoba, and his intuition says that the horse is "more complex" and therefore must have "more information" in it's genome. This gut feeling is heavily influenced by his pre conceived notion that God created everything and that the TOE is wrong. This biased and subjective interpretation is very unscientific.
Evolution is not defined as "things change".
This was taken from the Wikipedia entry on evolution:
Generally, evolution is any process of change over time. In the context of life science, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species.
So evolution is indeed defined as "things change".
So then you are saying we can "evolve" into fish? Funny, I have never seen that diagram in a book on evolution.
Humans could evolve into fish like beings under the right circumstances. It's not likely, but if the circumstances were such that moving towards a fish-like form were advantageous to an isolated population of humans consistently for millions or billions of years, then sure. The specifics would not be exactly the same almost certainly, just as dolphins and sharks are not exactly the same, because the starting point for the "man fish" would be different that the starting point of sharks was.
Either change is random, or it is directed. Which is it?
The effect of a mutation is random. Which mutations survive in the gene pool of the species is determined by how the phenotype (the actual manifestation of the gene on the biology of the organism) exhibited by the mutation interacts with the environment the organism finds itself in. For example, a dog could be born hairless due to a mutation. If there are killer fleas or lice endemic to the environment the dog lives in, and the weather is nice, then this could be an advantage. If it's cold or the sun is intense, this could be a disadvantage. The dog could evolve either way depending on the environment.
21 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiNow, how is that change manifested. Is it by moving towards simplified genetics or more complex? Does the TOE not say? Is that direction random over time, or does it lead in a specific direction?
You are merely arguing the evolution is directed. I don't know why you keep contradicting yourself by saying it has nothing to do with direction. Selective pressures (according to the TOE) are the directing forces.
Now, how is that change manifested. Is it by moving towards simplified genetics or more complex? Does the TOE not say? Is that directio ...[text shortened]... oof! There's a whale. Poof! There is a man!! Doe the TOE not say? Or maybe it can not say.
You have already said it is directed so lets go on from there. Would the "future fish-like creatures be genetically more complex or will they be as complex as todays minnow? And if it is the direction is nuetral regarding genetic complexity - then how does the TOE account for the existence of complex creatures?
Well, the TOE claims that life started as a single celled organism. The variation I think is probably correct claims that this organism itself evolved from self replicating molecules. Now, most people would probably describe self replicating molecules and single celled organisms as pretty simple things - as simple as you can get and still be alive, or even simpler than that in the case of self replicating molecules.
Where is there to go from here but "more complex"? Either that or stay at about the same level of complexity. Examples of the latter might be the single celled organisms we see in the microscope today. So, because these organisms could not become "less complex" they either got "more complex" or stayed at the same level of "complexity". (note that I'm using intuitive, vague definitions here as I have no rigorous definitions to go on)
Here's an analogy:
Think of a really big cloth or paper towel held on three sides by a wooden frame. The fourth side is free, though it's held somewhat taut. Now a drop of food coloring is dripped on to the free edge, right at the edge. The liquid will spread by capillary action, but it cannot spread past the edge, and it can't get closer to the edge as it's already there. But it can go away from the edge, or it can stay the same distance from the edge. Which way does it go? Well, there's a net spread away from the edge. That doesn't mean I or anyone else is doing something to cause this to happen. In this analogy "complexity" is the distance from the free edge.
As far as the proposed future "man fish" go,
Would the "future fish-like creatures be genetically more complex or will they be as complex as todays minnow?
You seem to be implying minnows are less "complex" than humans. On what basis do you claim this? Once again, how do you define "complex" such that you can make this implied claim? Or am I mistaken in what you meant?
21 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWould the "future fish-like creatures be genetically more complex or will they be as complex as todays minnow?
Now, how is that change manifested. Is it by moving towards simplified genetics or more complex? Does the TOE not say? Is that direction random over time, or does it lead in a specific direction?
You have already said it is direc ...[text shortened]... can make this implied claim? Or am I mistaken in what you meant?
Coletti, I answered your question with questions of my own, which is something I find highly irritating in others. So I will give you the best answer I can.
I don't know how to measure "complexity", so I can't give you an estimate of whether the proposed "man fish" would be more or less "complex" than either a minnow or a human.
21 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm assuming that a human is genetically more complex than a minnow. I suppose I could be wrong.
[b]Would the "future fish-like creatures be genetically more complex or will they be as complex as todays minnow?
Coletti, I answered your question with questions of my own, which is something I find highly irritating in others. So I will give you the best answer I can.
I don't know how to measure "complexity", so I can't give you an e ...[text shortened]... her the proposed "man fish" would be more or less "complex" than either a minnow or a human.[/b]
I appreciate your analogy, it presented a good image of the process. I think one of the major weaknesses of the explanations of TOE is the "tree of evolution" which projects all branches outward and upward - from simple creatures to complex creatures (I assume that it is the case that the further you advice along any branch, the more genetic complexity increases).
But the case may be that at any new point on your towel, a spot of food color could spread in any direction. Or is it the case (like the food color) that it can not move backwards - reverse - or move towards a space already saturated? Hmmm.
Seem like there are two options - the spread is generally away from the initial point (rarely reversing) - or it can spread in any direction at any point at any time.
I think the generally accepted view of the TOE is that evolved creatures are (generally speaking) more genetically complex, then their ancestors. That there are more functional genes now then our "evolutionary ancestors". Is this not the case. If you could measure the data in the genetic code of a man, would it not be greater than the data in the genetic code of a whatever TOE claims we evolved from.
21 Apr 05
4 edits
Originally posted by Coletti...more genetically complex, then their ancestors. That there are more functional genes now then our "evolutionary ancestors". Is this not the case. If you could measure the data in the genetic code of a man, would it not be greater than the data in the genetic code of a whatever TOE claims we evolved from.
I'm assuming that a human is genetically more complex than a minnow. I suppose I could be wrong.
I appreciate your analogy, it presented a good image of the process. I think one of the major weaknesses of the explanations of TOE is the ...[text shortened]... data in the genetic code of a whatever TOE claims we evolved from.
This is on the way to a useful definition of "complex". However, it still suffers from the use of unclear words - "functional" and "data".
I'll recap the progress we've made toward defining key terms:
CLEARLY DEFINED TERMS (OR CLEARLY ENOUGH)
(Genetic) Filler - 1. Introns and/or that part of the genome which is not transcribed.
Information - 1. (Gitt's definition) Something cannot be labelled 'information' unless it comes from an intelligent source. 2. (My definition with Coletti's help) The number of base pairs in the genome which get transcribed into RNA, excluding introns.
TERMS WHICH NEED MORE CLARIFICATION
Information - 1. Data which can be used for a purpose. 2. The genetic material that results from a mutation, but only if this material has a function. 3. Something that must increase for complexity to increase. 4. Something that must increase in order for evolution to occur. 5. A clear indication or proof of the TOE.
Complexity - 1. An example of complexity is that a cat is more complex than a single celled organism. 2. Something that increases if/as evolution occurs. 3. (Coletti) An organism is more complex if it has more functional genes.
Vertical, upward, downward, horizontal, positive, negative, forward, backward (change or movement of information) -
De-evolution/devolution - 1. A mutation that reduces the complexity of a life form. 2. An example is Alzheimer's.
Lower/Higher (species) -
Data -
Purpose -
Function -
Useful -
Goal (of evolution) -
Decay -
Direction (of evolution) -
None of the terms on the second list are yet defined well enough in the context of this discussion for me to be satisfied they can be used as the basis of an argument. I'd like to see definitions of any of these which anyone plans to use which do not include other undefined words on the list.
21 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompI must have missed this post.
Could it be possible that longer wavelengh emr might cause mutations to take place at a slower and therefore less destructive to the organisms than the short-wavelenghts we base random mutation on?
I'd guess that longer wavelength emr would not cause the same mutations to take place at a slower rate as shorter wavelenth emr. The reason for my taking this position is how Einstein explained the photoelectric effect. You cannot get the same results but slower with photons of lower energy as you can with photons of higher energy, as two low energy photons cannot induce the change that a high energy photon can (unless one weak photon could do it maybe). Either the mutations will happen at the same rate (assuming intensities of the two different wavelengths of light are the same) or the longer wavelength will not cause the mutations to occur. However you may get different mutations which a weak photon can induce.
A possibly relevant example of how photons interact with genetic material would be photoproducts such as thymine dimers and the 6-4 photoproduct which are caused by UV radiation. Either a photon hitting the adjacent thymines (for example) is strong enough to dimerize them, or it is not. If it's not, it shouldn't matter how long you keep bombarding the thymines with the weak photons - you're not going to get dimerization.
21 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Colettithink one of the major weaknesses of the explanations of TOE is the "tree of evolution" which projects all branches outward and upward - from simple creatures to complex creatures (I assume that it is the case that the further you advice along any branch, the more genetic complexity increases).
I'm assuming that a human is genetically more complex than a minnow. I suppose I could be wrong.
I appreciate your analogy, it presented a good image of the process. I think one of the major weaknesses of the explanations of TOE is the ...[text shortened]... data in the genetic code of a whatever TOE claims we evolved from.
Diagrams of how evolution is postulated to take place - properly termed cladograms - do not have an inherent "outward and upward" direction to them, unless by this you mean the direction of time passing. Also, again, "simplicity" and "complexity" are not terms used rigorously in evolution (as far as I know), and they'd need to be carefully defined before a proper evolutionist could accept or refuse to accept a claim that "complexity" increases as time passes.
But the case may be that at any new point on your towel, a spot of food color could spread in any direction.
Sure. This would be analogous to a dog *POOFING* into existence as the first form of life. Then there would be lifestyle niches which had no organisms to fill them, and which would be filled better by "simple" organisms than "complex" ones. Over time, "simple" single celled organisms might evolve from the dog to fill those niches. In this case, the drop of coloring could spread toward the free edge, as there is room to do so. *EDIT* - The dog would die before it reproduced, as it has no food and no mate. The TOE's proposed first life was asexual and didn't eat other living things but instead nonbiological molecules. So we'd need multiple dogs and dog food spontaneously appearing as well...but then the dogs could evolve 🙂.
Or is it the case (like the food color) that it can not move backwards - reverse - or move towards a space already saturated? Hmmm.
You might be taking the analogy too far here. Maybe not. If there is an organism that fills a niche, then if another organism evolves to fill the niche, the two organisms will compete, and only one will win. The other will either die out or continue to evolve so it's not in competition with the winner. So by analogy the molecules of food coloring might move into a saturated area, but the molecules already there would have to move out simultaneously - there's only room for so many molecules per unit of area of cloth.
I think the generally accepted view of the TOE is that evolved creatures are (generally speaking) more genetically complex, then their ancestors.
That might be a general trend using an intuitive definition, but again, that's because the first organisms were as "simple" as they could possibly get. The color will, generally, spread away from the edge toward the interior of the cloth. It won't get closer to the free edge.
However, there might be specific situations in which this is not the case, despite the general trend. Molecules of food coloring might move backwards back towards the edge and compete with the molecules already there.
21 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiWheat potatoes and maize are genetically far more complex than mann. The complexity of sugar cane is a quantum leap more complex again. So don't assume that man has the most complex genome. I don't know enough about animal genomes to know where man stands in the complexity league. Man or minnow, pfft, plants are far more complex. In terms of size, a mouse genome is approximately 3300000000 base pairs, mans is 3200000000 ie smaller.
I'm assuming that a human is genetically more complex than a minnow. I suppose I could be wrong.
I think the generally accepted view of the TOE is that evolved creatures are (generally speaking) more genetically complex, then their ancestors. That there are more functional genes now then our "evolutionary ancestors". Is this not the case. If you c ...[text shortened]... ld it not be greater than the data in the genetic code of a whatever TOE claims we evolved from.
It is in no way accepted that evolved creatures are (generally speaking) more genetically complex. Simple single celled are evolved creatures, invertebrates are evolved creature, fungi are evolved creatures. Are they all significantly more complex than they forebears?
21 Apr 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeAny ideas on the purpose of all those base pairs? Maybe they need them all. Then again, maybe you could edit out most of them.
Wheat potatoes and maize are genetically far more complex than mann. The complexity of sugar cane is a quantum leap more complex again. So don't assume that man has the most complex genome. I don't know enough about animal genomes to know where man stands in the complexity league. Man or minnow, pfft, plants are far more complex. In terms of size, a m ...[text shortened]... , fungi are evolved creatures. Are they all significantly more complex than they forebears?
21 Apr 05
Originally posted by Colettigoogle for the 'c value paradox'
Any ideas on the purpose of all those base pairs? Maybe they need them all. Then again, maybe you could edit out most of them.
Intergenic DNA used to be termed junk DNA. The assumption that if is all without function is currently being challenged but its too cutting edge for me to get my head around
21 Apr 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeAccording to the Human Genome Project, there are about 20 000 to 25 000 genes in the human genome. I haven't found the number for a mouse yet.
google for the 'c value paradox'
Intergenic DNA used to be termed junk DNA. The assumption that if is all without function is currently being challenged but its too cutting edge for me to get my head around
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer2001/1.shtml
22 Apr 05
1 edit
"The ghost of Jean Baptiste Lamark is back, casting a shadow over a series of recent experiments that could be the most important experiments ever for the theory of evolution. Hidden in a subsequent debate over whether nutritional deprivation in bacteria caused genetic changes that are either directly adaptive (Lamarkian) or something else, is the starkness of the fact that the environmental induction of inheritable variation calls into question one of the foundations of the Modern Synthesis"
"Beginning with the pioneering 1984 experiments of James Shapiro at the University of Chicago on selection-induced mutations and with the 1988 experiments of John Cairns et. al. at the Harvard School of Public Health on the environmental induction of genetic variation in Escherichia Coli, meticulously verified, entirely unexpected genetic changes were observed under conditions of insufficient or inappropriate nutrition. A lively debate ensued and continues over the nature and possible general importance of these mutations."
"Based on work with transposable elements in maize Barbara McClintock proposed a genomic stress hypothesis, that enviromental stresses may trigger genomic reorganizations and mutations capable of overcoming the stressful conditions (1). In flax plants subjected to certain soil and nutrient conditions stably inherited size differences in progeny were found, associated with inherited differences in ribosomal DNA (2)."
http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boomframe.[WORD TOO LONG].cartage.org.[WORD TOO LONG].htm%26invocationType%3Dnext%26fromPage%3DHPNextPrev%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cartage.org.lb%2Fen%2Fthemes%2FSciences%2FLifeScience%2FPhysicalAnthropology%2FHeredityandVariation%2FOriginofVariation%2FOriginofVariation.htm
that web addy is nearly as long as DNA strands
22 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiHere's something you may find interesting, Coletti. This website discussing the Human Genome Project claims many human genes produce more than one possible protein, unlike the fruit fly and roundworm. Now, this doesn't take into account how long those proteins are, but it does help people who want to define 'complexity' such that humans are shown to be more complex than these other organisms.
According to the Human Genome Project, there are about 20 000 to 25 000 genes in the human genome. I haven't found the number for a mouse yet.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer2001/1.shtml
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/HGP.html
22 Apr 05
Here's something else that's relevant:
The genetic and molecular organization of the mouse and human genes are quite similar: they have the same number of exons and have the introns located at the same amino acid residue in the transcript.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/science/scimeth3.htm