I enjoy this video so very much.
Abaa.. ah... ah... aba... what?
I love that video... not to mention the fact that he never answered the question. Yes, I have read his letter to his fans as to his answer. And it is almost as funny as the video.
The question was....
"Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
The answer is, no.
Niether he nor anyone else can... and they hate to admit it.
David Berlinsky addressed this in his book, The Devils Delusion.
Looks like he did answer the question. He said there is a "misunderstanding of evolution" by those who look at modern species and make claims that we evolved from them.
1- that first video you posted was actually him trying to figure out how to get those creationists out of his house - they LIED to him in order to get that interview. yes, Christians LIED in order to talk to him. Dawkins does not do public interviews or debates with Creationists because they gain everything, and he only loses his time.
here's dawkins response saying just this: http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications … challenge/
In this response he actually answers the question in a much more in depth answer than I can give.
2- Your quote: ""Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" ... The answer is, no.""... if this is true, then I'm about to receive the Nobel Prize for FURTHER proving evolution true, because I can name a specific even-if-you-don't-understand-evolution-AT-ALL answer to the question, and provide numerous sources.
Down Syndrome is an example of a genetic mutation that adds genetic information to the chromosome. BOOM! the entire debate is now moot.
Down Syndrome, DOWN SYNDROME, DOWN SYNDROME - - I answered it, you are incorrect, and creationists are lying scuzz bags.
It's mind boggling to try to understand how anyone can actually agree with and support Creationists who have to lie to get an interview, and then who proceed to doctor their video to try to destroy the credibility of a man who is doing nothing but trying to educate (perhaps crassly, but educate nonetheless).
Here' a video explaining Down Syndrome: and how it creates more genetic information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJKZPpH … re=related this video was found by simply clicking on "related videos" to the video you posted. This fact illustrates quite succinctly that you did NO research into the subject at hand whatsoever.
Here's a more neutral website who's first few paragraphs answers the Creationist-Liar's question" http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/ … ndrome.cfm
Quote: "Down syndrome is set of mental and physical symptoms that result from having an extra copy of Chromosome 21."
Another website: http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/ge … drome.html
Quote: "Normally, at the time of conception a baby inherits genetic information from its parents in the form of 46 chromosomes: 23 from the mother and 23 from the father. In most cases of Down syndrome, a child gets an extra chromosome 21 — for a total of 47 chromosomes instead of 46. "
And another: http://www.yourgenesyourhealth.org/ds/whatisit.htm
here's an illustration of the chromosomes of a down syndrome patient, you can see the extra genetic information for yourself: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt … CB8Q9QEwAg
-- the article attached to the image i just sent actually points out that Down Syndrome actually has a sort of benefit to it (although most will agree the costs aren't really worth the benefits). People with down syndrome are much much much less likely to get cancer. So, before you say "bah, evolution demands that people with down syndrome wouldn't reproduce!", I can respond by saying, "well, there IS a genetic benefit involved with down syndrome, and the poor individuals who are afflicted with the disease may carry the key to ending cancer! We might actually end up curing cancer thanks to the poor souls who bear the disease for us.... and also, Every single person i've ever met with Down Syndrome happen to be some of the nicest people I've ever met."
3- The video is actually a hoax - they dubbed out the questioners' audio while asking the question, and it turns out that instead of "being stumped" he is actually just dumbfounded that Creationists flew across the world, after lying to him to get an interview, and then demanded the interview be ended - here's the link to the true video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDD … re=related
Evolution is true, get over it - we've seen and have documented it happening. Human kind is even pretty close to Abiogenesis at this point.
I really hate to be so frank, but you simply HAVE to give up on this issue - Evolution is true. Creationists can do whatever they want, but they're just incorrect on the evolution question. Evolution is true.
It's just true. Get over it. You lose.
I will eagerly be awaiting your concession. You simply can not deny the information I've presented to you in any way shape or form. You don't have to accept evolution, but you have to realize that 1- the people who asked the question are scuzz bags, 2- Dawkins did them a favor by actually letting them carry out the interview, 3- There are NUMEROUS (or at least ONE) documented examples of genetic-information-increasing evolutionary processes out there, and 4- that just because ONE man might not answer a question doesn't mean that the man is a fool.
An extra copy is not added information in the genome... it is duplicate copy of the information.
Not the same thing.
The answer is, there is no example of it.
If your example were truly what you present it as, the people you quote would have that nobel, evan.
And I hate to break it to you evan... but intteligent design is not a religious theory.
It is a scientific theory...
Contrary to you and many others espousals that all intelligent design is religious fanaticism... it is actually supported by science.
As supported as "evolution" is.
And lets see what some of sciences own have to say...
Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
by John Sanford (October 2005)
Sanford drew heavily from the work of Motoo Kimura, James Crow, and Walter ReMine. He featured a lot of data I had never seen, and he applied the concept of signal-to-noise ratios (from information theory) to show that the selection pressures are too weak for natural selection to transmit useful information into the genome. He made devastating critiques of naturalistic evolution using standard population genetics. It was a superb book, something one would expect from such a capable scientist. I’m surprised this book is relatively obscure, it ought to be required reading for serious IDers!
Sanford’s Bio: Cornell Professor of 25 years (being semi-retired since 1998). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and genetics. He founded 2 successful biotech firms, Biolistics and Sanford Scientific. Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by Sanford. He still holds a position of Courtesy Associate Professor at Cornell.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig … cent-book/
Here are some endorsements for the book:
In the Mystery of the Genome Cornell University researcher John Sanford lifts the rug to see what evolutionary theory has swept under it. He shows that, not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn’t even have answers for how it could remain there.
I strongly recommend John Sanford’s Mystery of the Genome, which provides a lucid and bold account of how the human genome is deteriorating, due the accumulation of mutations. This situation has disturbing implications for mankind’s future, as well as surprising implications concerning mankind’s past.
Ohhh and they continue on.
Yours is not the only argument in town evan.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig … cent-book/
yes it is. It's an entire new chromosome that can be worked with. That new chromosome can then be used through evolution to create new information.
IN fact, I answered your response BEFORE you even asked it!!and going further, your response shows that you didn't even bother to read the article attached to the photo i sent you. So, I'll actually send you the link (i know that clicking 2 buttons is very hard to do), and then I'll copy and paste what I wrote earlier, and then I'll even copy and paste the passage FROM THE ARTICLE for you, and then i'll explain, even further, why it was relevant....
http://www.bioquicknews.com/node/68 -- Quote: "The rate of cancer in Down syndrome individuals is lower than 10 percent of that in the general population. It had been proposed that because Down syndrome individuals have an extra copy of chromosome 21, that there may be one or more cancer-protective genes on this chromosome"
Here's what I wrote before you even responded: "the article attached to the image i just sent actually points out that Down Syndrome actually has a sort of benefit to it (although most will agree the costs aren't really worth the benefits). People with down syndrome are much much much less likely to get cancer."
How does this prove that there is more information in the genome even though it's "just a copy"? -- because there seems to be an added piece of DNA that is causing there to be more "cancer fighting" something-or-other to be produced - the added DNA is causing the body to produce extra cancer-fighting material in the cells. The cell is ACTUALLY USING THAT NEW CHROMOSOME IN SOME WAY!!! Something about that extra chromosome is kicking cancer's butt. -- so EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST A COPY, that copy can now be manipulated through evolution, AND it's helping the being out (at least, in some manner).
Your response shows you have NO understanding of evolution. And also that you have NO understanding of the question.
Here's a brief run down of how it would work. A down syndrome child has 1 extra chromosome, and if they were to reproduce with other down syndrome people, that chromosome would be a bit different in his child. Then as time would progress, and if that added chromosome were a bonus, it would further be passed down, and more information could be tagged to it/ altered in it.
Having a whole new chromosome for evolution to play with would create quite a wild ride!
The question: "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" Is answered with Down Syndrome.
it is a genetic mutation (dawkins gives the "evolutionary process" in his answer) that can be seen (i even showed you a picture) to increase the information (there's a whole new friggin' chromosome) in the genome (the once 46, but now 47 chromosome long human genome).
Sorry TMMason, you're just not correct here. THe correct answer is NOT "there is no example", the correct answer is "oh, jeez, I guess you showed me an exact example of AN ENTIRE NEW CHROMOSOME BEING GENERATED, and Richard Dawkins has shown me how processes can lead to new genetic information being created! Jeez, thanks guys - i Guess those nitwits were wrong to try to make Dawkins look stupid! How shallow and inept of them".
You also didn't mention, at all, how the video was doctored, nor did you address my statement that the interviewers HAD TO LIE just to get the interview, nor did you address my claim that creationists are lying skuzz bags.
All you did was say "nope, some creationist guy told me the answer is 'there are none', so even though I am being shown evidence point blank, I'm going to ignore it".
I already know that any further response on my behalf would be a complete waste of time, so this will be the last time I respond to you. If "direct evidence" and a "distinct example" can't change your mind, then nothing will.
No evan... your response shows you will ingnore other facts to espouse your religion of evolution.
it is to be expected when discussing evolution with a true believer like yourself.
And yes those downs syndrome children really enjoy thier "wild ride".
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig … cent-book/
Evan your as fanatical as a rabid christian about this... so maybe we shouldn't discuss it anymore.
I know the truth... and you can continue to teach or speak your own opinion on it.
You do know Evolution is a theory... and it is such for a reason.
And must I define the words, new, and duplicate?
Show me new information added to the genome... not a defect that causes duplicate information.
Is that too deep a concept for Evolutionary Biologist to comprehend?
You're wrong. we've seen evolution, and there are documented cases or evolution.
You're wrong, Creationism makes absolutely NO predictable claims to confirm it, thus it can't be a theory.
You're wrong. Evolution is not a religion - it was a hypothesis that has not, at all, through ALL the independent research taking place, been dis-proven in ANY way.
You're wrong. "Evolution is just a theory" is one of the most wonderful things you could EVER say about evolution -- a scientific theory means "a hypothesis that has never been proven wrong". The theory of Gravity, the theory of mass, the theory of the atom, the theory of thermodynamics, the theory of evolution, the theory of sound waves, the theory of electrons, the theory of light waves, the theory of the quantum nature of small particles... These are ALL "just theories".
You're wrong. "God did it all 6000 years ago" is easily dis-proven by simply going to Hiroshima and seeing the "Genpaku Dome" - the same theory of half-lives that applies to radio-carbon dating is the same theory of half-lives that applies to atomic bombs.
You're just wrong. Sorry.
This is the reason why Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists - you could show them evolution happening right in front of them, but they'll just say "that's wrong". It's completely non-beneficial to me to even TALK about the issue - it's 100% impossible to change your mind, and it takes me time to talk to you. The only real reason I posted my first respond on your forum was to let EVERYONE ELSE know that there IS a specific example of new genetic material showing through completely natural means without the hand of god.
I will, like Richard Dawkins, refuse to discuss this with you anymore.
one last thing: if you use "the eye" or "the banana" (these are common arguments of creationists) as illustrations for how evolution is false by arguing that "they're just too complex", you're ACTUALLY proving Creationism wrong. The banana was created through evolution - it's one of the documented cases of evolution, and the human eye is actually horribly designed - the capillaries and veins are IN FRONT of the rods and cones.
You're. Just. Plain. Wrong.
Refuse all you want, evan... I wasn't speaking to you anyway. lollllll
Whats is wrong, is pushing theory as fact.
What is wrong, is giving half -cocked answers in an attempt to obfuscate the reallity of things as they are.
And what is especially wrong about your assumptions, is that I believe in Creationism.
I am argueing Intelligent Design, not creationism.
You would know that, if you actually knew much about the subject at hand.
So... your wrong all the way around in your last post.
To bad... so sad.
ID = Creationism - didn't you read the Pandas and People book?
I couldn't help but re-read your post, and I saw "I wasn't talking to you anyway lolllllll"
... you're... posting... on an open... forum....
... and the post that... I was responding to... started... off with "no, evan..." .... ... ...
good job on that. That must be the same reasoning you used to "prove" Creationism.
Evan, you do realize that the theory of evolution is full of holes, like a fly swatter?
On a side note, many prominent physicists no longer believe in "gravity" as Newton wrote about it, so those theories are the furthest from incontrovertible. Read Erik Verlinde, and then, cry. Astrophysics and cosmology are more important fields than biology. They go back to the origin of the universe itself, and the top theorists in those fields have failed abysmally.
In any context, this bolded statement deserves a laugh.
i know, right?
he takes "we haven't found every single fossilized animal yet" and translates it into "gaping holes!!"
When in reality - EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL EVER FOUND HAS COMPLETELY SHOWN EVOLUTION TO BE RIGHT!!!
All it would take to disprove evolution would be for some guy to come across a fossil, and for it to be dated in a time that would make no sens.
the famous quote "rabbits in the cambrean". This would COMPLETELY destroy evolution and we'd have to give up on it...
... but it has never happened in over 300 years (or more) of searching for fossils.
Care to offer anything to support your assertions? What holes? What shortcomings?
Nonsense, Newtons formulas are widely used by scientists in many different aspects. They used them to put capsules on the moon and probes into deep space to observe our distant planets.
The theory of gravity is in fact being questioned. (I don't have a link but it was discussed on "Science Friday" on NPR this past week".
More importantly, the case was stated that scientific theories represent "a preponderance of evidence", not irrefutable facts. The theory of evolution is the best method we currently have to describe the progression of life but the theory itself will...
I would very much like to see that. I tried looking for some information but found nothing. What exactly is being questioned?
I'm not sure why it wasn't on NPR's site, possibly because it was only a brief part of the overall conversation.
Here is one link regarding the discussion
Thanks. I read the article and found this:
"a revival of an idea that was expressed by Newton in effect, although he described the entity as an aether. It is shown that the only feasible candidate for this purpose is the so-called galactic cosmic radiation"
After further researching Arthur Wilkinson, I did not find anything other than his ideas on crank and crackpot sites. The article itself was more or less just a bunch of hand waving and didn't provide anything of value that actually questions gravity. I suppose we have to buy his book to find out the details, or if there is just a bunch more hand waving.
As far as "galactic cosmic radiation" is concerned, this does not have anything to do with gravity other than the fact that radiation does exhibit a gravitational field but in such infinitesimal measures, it couldn't possibly provide the same effects that are being measured.
@ Beelzedad (sorry for the incorrect reply area)
yeah, i'd love to see that as well.
I'm sure what these guys MEAN is that Newton's Ideas of Gravity have been shown to be incorrect...
... BY EINSTEIN!!!! Who's theory of gravity we NOW use (for important things) to more accurately understand gravity.
String Theory - which has yet to actually prove anything, thus it isn't an actual theory, it's merely a hypothesis - might be restructuring the way we think about gravity, but it has yet to formulate anything coherent.
Yes, by Einstein. More recently by others. (link to one such source above). No one is claiming to refute the theory, but new technologies are causing some of the assumptions to be challenged.
his argument is at direct odds with Einstein's theory....
... until he provides better proof open to the public, then i'm gonna stick with my main man Albert.
But either way, this entire discussion is moot - the argument is that "because people are questioning gravity, Creationism is a valid argument!", which is utter nonsense.
Maybe if I started to hear Creationists make the argument "gravity is when god pulls you down each time you jump -- he's really good at catching everybody at exactly the same rate... because he's God", then the argument would be valid...
but instead the idea that "gravity is being questioned, thus evolution must be wrong" we should think of it more this way "gravitational theory might need some tweaking here or there, but for the most part Newton and Einstein got it right... Also, Darwin likely had a few mistakes in his original theory, but we've polished a few pieces here or there, and his theory still remains very very very valuable."
I assume you are replying to me since my post has been quoted, but I never said nor do I believe that the theory of evolution is wrong or that I am a creationist.
right-o, I'm lambasting the idea that "because other theories need to be re-thinked, Evolution is wrong".
This is a common argument. And it's nonsense. I just wanted to end the idea before it grew.
Even if our current theory of gravity were completely wrong, and it turns out that there actually was some sort of weird cosmo-radiation thing that pulled us down...
... it wouldn't translate to "god just pulls us all down each time we jump".
oh, one last thing - that Nelson guy argues that there is "so much complexity" in life.
Have you ever seen a dinosaurs skeleton? it's remarkably similar to that of a human.
THe correct answer is NOT "there is no example", the correct answer is "oh, jeez, I guess you showed me an exact example of AN ENTIRE NEW CHROMOSOME BEING GENERATED, and Richard Dawkins has shown me how processes can lead to new genetic information being created! Jeez, thanks guys - i Guess those nitwits were wrong to try to make Dawkins look stupid! How shallow and inept of them".
All you did was say "nope, some creationist guy told me the answer is 'there are none', so even though I am being shown evidence point blank, I'm going to ignore it".
I though this was worth highlighting.
Wow, he was expressively stumped. A scientific blond moment?
The concept of mutation is still the biggest unknown in the theory.
Instead, they should be looking for "progressive information" or "informational mitosis" at the cellular level. But, they can't.
In essence, it would show proof genetically, that developmental information, on a per species basis, is evolving or even devolving.
But to do that, science would have to explain why proteins and acids unite to form genetic compounds and more so, where that data came from and why it varies from species to species.
Also liked the "categorical evolution" spin he put on a completely off topic response. Might have been a "greenhouse" gas effect.
actually he wasn't stumped - the video was doctored.
They edited out the audio of the question being asked to dawkins, and so the time it looks like he's thinking is actually the time he's using to listen to the question.
here's the link interposing the two videos, the big one is what they show you, and the small one is the real video with teh question being played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDD … re=related
The reason he's so upset and asks the man to stop recording is because the people completely LIED to him and flew around the world just to ask him a stupid question. Dawkins doesn't give interview to bone-headed creationists because it's a COMPLETE waste of time to argue with them.
Also, the answer to Dawkins' question is Down Syndrome!!
BOOM incontrovertible answer to the question!! BUT THAT WON'T STOP CREATIONISTS!!!
The question was regarding information in the genome, and the increase of said front-loaded information.
Not the mis-understanding of the familial relation of evolution.
Part of the question was regarding the increase of information in the genome through evolutionary mutations OR other evolutionary processes which increase info in the genome...
So the answer involved the mutations of species which increased their complexity, and that is how he indirectly answered the question.
I'll answer for Dawkins
His reply was indirect, but he did address the substance of the question, which was about the evolutionary process which generated higher-functioning animals from lower; about mutations which increased the complexity of animals through evolution.
These mutations happen so slowly over time that we may not see direct, modern evidence of this process in today's modern versions of animals.
So you agree we do not know of any. That there is no example of said process that we can show.
But we can pre-suppse this and guess at that.
Very scientific, yes indeed.
If there are no known examples of it, then I must deserve a Nobel Prize!
There are examples of it, it is incorrect to claim that there are no known examples of it.
Down Syndrome is the easiest answer that people who know nothing of evolution can understand.
Please sit down and actually read Dawkins' Book "The Greatest Show on Earth" ... It's absolutely AMAZING. it's breathtaking in its grandeur.
And it will answer many of your questions about life.
PLEASE do NOT succumb to the "earth is 6000 years old, and god created us the way we are" story. It just can't be true: the same information used to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki is used to date the earth to its ... what is it?... 11 billion years old age. So, if you deny the earth is 11 billion years old, then you HAVE to deny the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by two bombs during WWII.
What we can see from all of this is the dishonesty and deceiving of Christians who attempted to dupe Dawkins and failed.
Really... what I see is that none of us really know the truth of the matter.
Guess all you want... I still see no real example.
And yes I see the back-door answer of, Down Syndrome.
But we all know that isn't what is meant.
And if it was such a simple thing that all of you can answer it... then why couldn't he?
Because there is no example to be shown.
He, like many atheist in the fields of science, simply chalks our refusal to accept a sham answer up to stupidity on our part.
That is what turns so many off from Evolution, the attitude and elitist snikering. But there are many scientists in the fields who embrace and believe in intelligent design.
Not creationism... intelligent design.
And that is okay, you all laugh all you want. I am in good company in my beliefs about evolution and intelligent design.
And again I will say it... "more"... and, "New", are two different things all together.
So, that is a problem how? Does it show gods exist? What is the point you're making with this thread, then?
My point is that science, or some of those within the fields, tend to exagerrate what is fact and what is not, what we know, and what we do not know.
Evidently they think they do a service to the sciences by making unfounded assumptions. Or pressing ahead with arguments based on assumptions made through observations of scattered facts that are not relatable other than through giant leaps of imagination.
They DO NOT do a service to science in this way... they simply turn away people who would other-wise consider thier views with more sincerity.
Could there be a way to add NEW information to the genome in a natural way... of course there COULD be.
But do we know of an example of it?
No, we do not.
It is a simple point. One most average people understand.
Do I know Evolution exists... of course I do. We can watch micro-evolution in action. Do we know how new information is seemingly added to existing front-loaded information... no we do not.
And to say we do just isn't true.
That is my point.
That has not been made apparent in your OP or anywhere else.
"Unfounded assumptions and giant leaps of imagination" like your computer and internet connection, for example?
Scientists are interested in science. What other services are you expecting from them?
So, you ridicule Dawkins by presenting a dishonest video created by Christians to make your point? Interesting.
You know it is obfuscated BS like that, that ruins a conversation.
I have not said science has not produced some wonderous things.
Show me where I said they hadn't.
Just like someone who doesn't want to face the facts, you throw out things that have no bearing on, or take the conversation to some extreme, no one has spoke of.
And not all scientists are interested in science... some have agendas.
Just like all people.
And I have a right to my opinion of Dawkin's answer, and his attitude toward those who dis-agree with him.
Also... those who did the interview refute the charge that Dawkins was set-up.
So I guess it is his word against thiers.
And Dawkins didn't look forced to give that interview to me.
But I guess when you need an out, anything is good.
Well, you appeared to be making a sweeping generalized statement considering you didn't provide any examples. Can you give me some examples?
Fair enough, I'm not about to disagree with you there. That's why there is the peer review process that weeds out those with agendas.
I don't disagree with that either. It just didn't add up here though with our OP and the answer you were looking for in regards to the genome.
To clarify then, this thread is about ridiculing Dawkins or the genome question?
Did you also notice the question in the video was asked by a woman while those who actually interviewed Dawkins were male? Wouldn't that be somewhat deceitful and dishonest?
I'm sure you're already aware - but I've pointed to the video that shows how the video was doctored.
Also, once again, to answer FOR Dawkins - DOWN SYNDROME!!!
Yes, I did see that doctored video, but I couldn't see using it as evidence as it may also have been doctored. That's the problem with presenting videos as any kind of evidence, especially with our current technologies with computer graphics and such.
"Not creationism... intelligent design"
Let me help you out - creationism IS intelligent design. here's an image of where the people didn't even bother erasing the full word "creationist proponents" and instead wrote "Cdesign proponentsists".
They're the same thing.
Wow...arent we supposed to have a good laugh at Dawkins?? But it seems like everyone is having the good laugh at TMMason!!!
Nothing logical, all too common and making no sense, help me my friend!
We need to get these forums rockin
maybe we;ll start by hijacking all the threads from page 23
I'm cool but more so whatzup wit chu?
Being bad or good?
so bored logic, ok well, procrastinating but bored doing that!
I'm so bad I am good!
I think it might take dynamite to get these forums rockin!
I'll bring the lighters or I reckon they are on timers. CIA stuff?
Hey have we hijacked this one?
see, still so lame
such a shame
ain't no game
where is wayne
always the same
And here I tame
my fake name
see, still so lame
How are we defining "information" here?
Genes are just different combinations of base pairs, so it seems to me that mutations increase the amount of "information" in a population by definition, because now you've got a new combination of base pairs available. It doesn't "increase" the "information" in the individual organism, because it replaces the normal combination of base pairs with a new one, but within the local population, you've now got 100 organisms with one combination of base pairs and 1 organism with a different one. That is a 100% increase in genetic variation for that particular gene.
If you're asking how the total number of genes in the genome increased from, say, the ~5,000 in yeast to the ~20,000 in humans, there are quite a few possibilities, including theft (some organisms can steal genes from other organisms) and chromosome duplication such as you've been discussing with Evan re: Down syndrome. The extra chromosome may start out as an identical copy, but it will duplicate independently, essentially doubling the potential for mutations. The replicas may be identical or they may be different, and the potential for mutation increases exponentially after that.
I understand that aspect of it, Kerry.
My point is we cannot point to an example of it.
No matter what we think.
We do not know how it occurs.
And since we do not know... we cannot say.
I mean we can guess and hypthesize all day, but in the end we do not know.
And there is no example of, "new" information, being added to the genome.
None.. it does not exist, or if it does, we do not know of it.
I understand that a defective copy is a new addition... but it is not "new information".
I think I got that out clear... lemme know if I didn't.
And I am not trying to argue, K... I just believe that science should be honest about what we know and what we do not know.
There are too many these days who speak on evolution as a fact of human development.
And that is not a fact we know as of yet.
I do agree with Alfred Wallace in his arguments with Darwin about the Animal kingdom... Vs... the Human.
As I said, down syndrome is not new information added to the genome... it is duplicate information within the genome... a stutter... so to speak, but nothing new.
Thank you for participating, Brie.
I agree completely.
And I don't believe they are still using that idiotic chart that in no way even speaks correctly to the Theory Of Evolution.
It is not a lineal progression, but more on the idea of a sprigs sprouting along a branch.
But your right, it shouldn't be in schools. Or if it is it should be confined to the Animal Kingdom.
And it shouldn't surprise me... they still teach Miller/Urey as fact. When even Miller came out and said they got it wrong with premordial soup components.
But why let a lil thing like lying and faking stop them.
And we know the pilt-down man was fake... and the Black Peppered moth study was faked... oh so many fakes and lies, and they wonder why we do not believe them.
Which has been my point throughout.
You didn't answer my question. How are you defining information for purposes of this discussion, and what would qualify as "new" information to you?
We know exactly how genetic variation arises in a population and how, over time, these variations can snowball to the point that the populations splits into two or more separate species.
"Over time" is the key point, however. Brie's hub talks about how ridiculous it is to believe that a dog could ever give birth to something that is not a dog and she's right, that is ridiculous.
But she's also completely missing the point of evolution. New species don't just arise overnight and no evolutionist with any understanding of science has ever claimed they did - it takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years of tiny incremental changes to split one species into two. Dogs were domesticated from wolves as much as 30,000 years ago, but they can still interbreed with them. 30,000 years from now, they probably will still be able to.
Her picture of humans evolving from what appears to be a chimp is also inaccurate, but offers a glimpse of exactly how long it may take before dogs and wolves say goodbye forever. The last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived about 7 million years ago, and the intervening species of ancestral humans have each lasted hundreds of thousands of years apiece. Physically modern humans have been around about 250,000 years, and we're still considered a fairly young species. Sort of puts a piddling little 30,000 years into perspective, I hope.
Unless, of course, you sincerely believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, in which case there's no point in continuing this conversation. It's impossible to prove macro evolution on that scale because it doesn't occur on that scale. Macro evolution requires a time scale that humans can scarcely comprehend. A geologic time scale... or a divine one.
I guess to put this simply.
I am talking about the digital codes stored within nucleotides within the DNA and RNA.
We know the structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code, and it is THIS code I am speaking of.
We know strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions, (the information which we are speaking of), for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.
Now... I know Francis Crick developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis,” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code.
Just as English letters may convey a certain message depending on their arrangement, so also do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions,(the ones we're speaking of), for building proteins.
The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole.
So the DNA molecule has the same property of sequence specificity that characterizes codes and language.
As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged when he said..., "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like."
Yeah... Richard... nice of you to notice.
And Bill Gates has stated... “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.”
Huh... you think.
In the 1960s further break-throughs made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system, an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.
But I digress...
Now... where did that information come from? And how is new information programmed into this digital code?
What Genetic Process, or Evolutionary Mutation, (and I don't mean genetic defect either.) shows us this process?
Where!... Is the example of new information bein gained by the genome.
I have not seen it produced as of yet.
But I have heard plenty of folks, (not you, k), spout thier idiocy in an attempt to down my understanding of Evolution, and Genetics.
Too bad for them I do know what I am talking about, and can back it up.
I am not some poor kid trapped in a class with an over-bearing jerk of a proffesor, who can be intimidated into spouting thier regergitated drivel and praising thier intellect.
On the contrary... I find thier arrogance a bit insulting, but mostly humorous.
But then again... I have never been a fan of the intelligencia and Academicians
Dawkins did not answer because there is no example .
The example does not as of yet, if it ever will, exist.
If that isn't clear K, just say so.
But I think I have covered what you were asking... and more.
And I agree... I stated the picture is a complete mis-conception of Evolution as espoused by the Evolutionary Biologists.
But Evolution should not be taught in school as a fact of human development.
It is just not fleshed out enough with facts and evidence to suppport the giant leaps of imagination made by those who espouse it.
I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone. We are talking about exactly the same thing and coming to precisely opposite conclusions. This is not something I'm used to in science discussions. Politics, sure, but not over a scientific theory as solid and well-established as the theory of DNA.
I'm going to break this down and try to figure out where our opinions are diverging, if you don't mind.
We agree that DNA consists of 4 base pairs - adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine - ordered into precise sequences, and that these sequences code for particular genes, which in turn code for particular sequences of amino acids producing particular proteins that result in particular traits in an organism's appearance and/or behavior. Correct?
We agree that this sequence of bases replicates itself through the processes of mitosis (normal cells) and meiosis (sex cells). Correct?
We agree that mutations are caused by minor changes to the sequence of DNA during replication, and that mutations can be passed on to offspring if they occur to the DNA of sex cells during meiosis. Correct?
We agree that mutations cause a change in the sequence of bases resulting in a change to a particular gene, which in turn results in a change in the sequence of amino acids coded by the gene, resulting in a change in the type of protein produced by the amino acids, resulting in a change to the appearance and/or behavior of the offspring who inherited the mutated gene. Correct?
So, given that the offspring now exhibits an entirely new genotype producing an entirely new trait never before seen in its particular species, and can now proceed to pass that trait on to its own offspring, how does that not qualify as introducing new "information" into the genome? If that's not new information, what is?
Lalalalala I'm not listening lalalalalalala I disbelieve lalalalalalala I made my save vs illusions so down syndrome doesn't exist lalalalalalalalala I assert my own worldview over reality lalalalalalalala only my perceptions are valid lalalalalalala
That being said, how can humans determine "a", "the" or some other article injection with regard to "time". If evolution/devolution are variables within a process, they are then parallel sequences/conditions. In short equal or duality. That makes them limited to only the concept(s) of "time" and the "mechanics" applied. Any common thinking human being can conceive processes beyond "time" --it is called imagination. So, I can accept your statement of unmeasurable application.
Is this theory of evolution/devolution valid then or considerable? Is it valuable based on solid facts without human measurements of micro/macro. What infallible reference does nature provide for such and how are they being applied to the theory as a whole? As the question was placed to Mr. R. Dawkins. Should any scientist provide infallible reference to "progressive informational mitosis" at the genome level, evolution would then have a case, yes?
One last thing before I leave this forum forever - Down Syndrome is a specific example of adding MORE genetic information to the genome of an animal.
The entire forum is Moot.
The theory of evolution has a plethora of shortcomings. Since the corrollary to the theory of evolution is the the big bang theory, why not resolve the question of the beginning of time and what CAUSED the big bang?
here's a great video series for everyone to watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
it systematically destroys every single creationist mumbo-jumbo argument.
Evolution doesn't talk about time & big-bang, that's inflation theory and big-bang theory for you to study.
Scientists are working on that, they need more time. If they find the answer, would you accept it over other beliefs?
"New"... and... "more"... are two different things.
That is the simplest thing in the world to understand, except for some.
No, in this case, new=more. If a gene has one possible genotype, then undergoes a mutation and acquires a new one, you've just increased the information available for that particular trait by 100%.
In terms of increasing the number of genes (rather than the number of genotypes) in a specific organism's genome (i.e. from ~5000 for yeast to ~20,000 for humans), I've already discussed at least two known mechanisms by which this happens, and you've conveniently ignored one (theft of genes) and pooh-poohed the other (duplicate genes).
Granted, the example we've been talking about with duplicate genes (Down Syndrome) is not a good one because it is a defect, but duplicate genes are extremely common among living organisms, have a very high rate of mutation compared to normal genes, and are not always defects. Wheat has six separate copies of its genome, and it's doing just fine, while yeast is believed to have duplicated its entire genome at once at some point in the past. Duplicates may start out as identical copies, but due to their high rate of mutation, they don't stay that way for long and the changed genes get mixed back in with the regular genome. The end result is to increase both the number of available genotypes and the total number of genes.
Frankly, whether you believe this to be "new information" or not doesn't even matter, because it's not necessary for a big bunch of brand new genes to just spontaneously append itself to some critter's genome. That's not how evolution works! Mutations of existing and duplicate genes are all you need for evolution to occur. These explain both the increase in the total number of genes between simple organisms and more complex ones, and the variation in traits between different organisms of the same species that can ultimately lead to one species breaking up into two.
Just wanted to remind everyone that Creationism is nonsense and that Evolution is used on a daily basis.
It's true! sorry! Humans actually use evolution every day!
And the answer to dawkins' question is "down syndrome".
I'll pop in every couple of days to remind everyone.
If you are so sure it is nonsense, surely you would not feel the need to assure yourself of it on an ongoing basis or "every couple of days."
Try being a little less transparent.
The rank ignorance of the fundamentalists as demonstrated here is damaging America.
Certainly we see the lack of intelligence in other threads, but it is never so starkly highlighted as it is here.
Never cease to amaze me.
There are two options here:
1. The OP is genuinely ignorant and (I assume) offended by a scientific theory he does not grasp that appears to prove there is no such thing as the biblical god.
2. He does understand it and is (I assume) offended that a scientific theory that proves the biblical god cannot exist is allowed to be published, and therefore feels it is necessary to attack it. In order to defend the faith I suppose - I cannot imagine another reason.
He certainly appears to be offended. Either way - I am genuinely shocked at this atrocious behavior and it reinforces my opinion of christianity.
I guess the nub of the matter is that American churches did not quite have enough time to collect enough money to survive the drought of believers they are going through. The Church of England and the Vatican have more money and property than god and I suspect it makes not a whit of difference to them whether they get another member or not. Their investment portfolios rival most small county's GDPs.
They now seem comfortable giving uop the fight against evolution and going around persuading the sheeple that condoms do not prevent AIDS and the churches are "investing ethically".
Oh - and the Pope is really, really sorry if you got it up the bum from your local neighborhood priest, but that is god's will........
Evolution's validity implies nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.
It does, however, imply something about a literal interpretation of holy texts...
Actually, it does imply.
It is just another nail in the coffin. Gods are unnecessary - science keeps pushing religion farther and farther into a corner.
There's very little wriggle room now - oh, except for the really crazy folks. Most theists today have a very soft religion where the god isn't particularly involved in their daily lives. It's all very vague and they don't want o examine any of it very closely because they know that sicence, logic and common sense are against them. It comforts them to believe, so they continue to do so and I find no fault in that.
I do find fault with the kind of nonsense we see here. Frankly, its disgusting and it really is harming us. Fundamentalist religious belief retards progress and we should be doing everything we can to dissuade people from being mired in it.
That's one of the reasons I oppose private education and home schooling. I think these fundies have used that to raise a generation of ignorant children who have been exposed to nothing but religious claptrap their entire lives. That ignorance is very, very dangerous to the rest of us.
Yes PC we will send all of our children to you leftists so you can re-educate them to the proper lines of thought and reason.
um hum... yeah.
You sling further Left everyday dude.
Proving my point exactly.
Raising ignorant children, infecting them with insane beliefs, teaching them hatred..
Public schools are open to scrutiny. The courses are argued and set by the public. They include SCIENCE because, unlike you, most people understand that science is reality.
No they are not open to public debate and opinion. Have you looked at what is taught in schools today?
I will continue to home-school.
And funny how home schooled children pass with higher marks on all the "standardized tests". Yes excellent proof of the quality education the NEA and the feds provide.
Check the stats man... Home-Scooled children for the most part are way ahead of poublic school kids. ThePublic schools today are interested in Social Engeneering, not education.
Some people do good home schooling. But some religious nutcases use it as an excuse to shield their children from reality.
There's also the likelihood of "teaching to the test" - OK, kids, these are the lies you need to learn to get a job, but we know that they are lies because the Bible tells us so..
Haha, when we were homeschooling, my mom did the opposite! In our state at that time, homeschooling was only allowed for religious reasons, which my agnostic parents fudged a little on the grounds that "values" are practically the same as religious beliefs, but my mom made us read tons and tons of fundie propaganda so we wouldn't stand out at our 99% fundie homeschool support group.
I hate to break it to you Pc, but the God I follow has commanded me to... "test all things, and hold fast to that which is true."
When I find a lie, I reject it.
And my God expects me to seek the truth and only the truth.
If science produces something and can prove the thruth of it, not a guess at the truth of it -a hypothesis or theory-, then I accept it.
You mean when you hear anything that disagrees with your religious views, you label it as a lie and go looking for fundie pseudo science sites to help justify it.
More often you heartily embrace it. Isn't willful ingnorance a sin? Isn't it wrong to scream self-serving lies until you are blue in the face?
Yeah, no great surprise there. It's obvious you wouldn't want your children exposed to reality.
That is not the case in all home-school students. In fact, there is a serious problem with inadequate standards of academic quality and comprehensiveness.
For example, professor Rob Reich from Stanford University said:
"homeschooling can potentially give students a one-sided point of view, as their parents may, even unwittingly, block or diminish all points of view but their own in teaching. He also argues that homeschooling, by reducing students' contact with peers, reduces their sense of civic engagement with their community."
The statistics reveal that many home schooled children are not subject to the required mandatory testing hence the statistical results are biased.
Absolutely. Manipulating children is the easiest way to keep us submissive.
it was interesting to read your response.
1- I'm an atheist, so I'm all for people realizing god is unnecessary / likely doesn't exist
2- but I don't care if you like god or not - g'head and do your thang.
Although i must admit, I'm not sure that science could ever hope to kill religion, for i think that spirituality is not the source of religion - i believe state is the source:
I saw an interesting bumper sticker - "God Hope?" on the back of a car that also had a "flying spaghetti monster" symbol. I was like "what?"... ..
... the "got hope" was an Obama bumper sticker!!! I couldn't believe it!! State has become religion, even to those who realize the ludicrosity of religion (and i'm sure it wasn't the first time!)
Aids is a homosexual desease, mark, always has been, always will be.
So just do not participate in homosexual behaviour and chances are you should be fine.
Of course I would still tell everyone to use condoms to prevent against unwanted deseases other than aids, and a small chance of aids from those who bouce around the court.
Especially Leftists should use condoms so they don't make the abortion clinics filthy rich with thier idea of birth control.
Second. I have not once metioned the "God of the Bible" anywhere in this conversation. And I could care less about the organized religions in America. I see that organization and amassed power and riches as one of the main corrupting influences on religion.
Of course none of that matters. It is just a convienant way for you not to answer. You all want this to be a conversation about creationism... it is not. it is in regards to I.D. which alot of scientists support.
And I am far from upset mark.. lol
I just think it is too funny that you all freak out like a bunch of raving mad men because we, or I, will not buy your half cocked assumtions of a theory.
There is a reason Dawkins did not answer that question... he couldn't.
The example does not exist.
You and all the others can hypothesize all you want.
It is just that, a hypothesis... a guess made on assumptions based on observations of some scattered facts, -(if you could call most of them that at all)- that require great leaps of imagination to connect.
Have a good morning mark.
AIDs is a homosexual disease? What, did time stop for you in the early 80's?
Humans picked it up from chimpanzees (the bush meat trade is my guess) and rates of heterosexual transmissions passed homosexual transmission in many countries decades ago, mainly because the gay community realized what was going on and got smart about protecting themselves, while people like you keep spreading the notion among straight people that it's a "gay" disease, so we don't have to worry about it.
Congratulations, for somebody so concerned about the "homosexual agenda" taking over the US, you're doing a great job playing your part in speeding it along!
That is because of the cross sexual partnering of people who just didn't care, or know better. Or those who were raped in the wars throughout Africa. And those who use hypodermic drugs with people already infected.
NOT, by normal hetero-sexual behaviour between partners who had never used Hypo-drugs or engaged in homo-sexual behaviour.
You must vivisect the classifications of transmission to get the true numbers kerri... i know you know that.
But it makes for good propaganda to clump them all together and say it is a desease for all.
It doesn't matter anyway... it is an awful desease that needs to be confronted and brought under control, if not erradicated.
And I would rather not discuss this anymore... certain Admins on here will be tripping over one another to suspend me, again, because they do not like my views about Homosexuality.
Sorry... I have been chucked already for this converstion, homosexuality, on a couple of occassions.
Not going to give them the oppurtunity again.
-Mutation: what is it muting into?
-Duplication/Replication: if carbon-copying, wouldn't the data most likely be identical, unchanged. Unless during division, the information is proportionally segmented, in which case would not evolve but devolve (a collapse).
For evolution to occur, the item must increase its genetic composition from itself, else the categorical theory goes out the window. Where is the "new" data coming from?
I have elaborated at great length above.
-Mutation: what is it muting into?
It's not necessarily mutating "into" anything. A mutation can be as simple as a change in one single base pair in one single gene, which may not have any effect at all, because some amino acids are coded by multiple base sequences.
It takes the accumulated effect of hundreds, thousands, or millions of mutations to mutate anything "into" something else, and organisms have a variety of mechanisms to ensure that nothing so drastic happens all at once. This is why, as I discussed above, after 30,000 years of separate evolution dogs and wolves are still genetically similar enough to successfully reproduce with each other. I mean, I wouldn't recommend you try crossing a Pekingese with a gray wolf, but it will be tens or hundreds of thousands more years before you technically can't.
-Duplication/Replication: if carbon-copying, wouldn't the data most likely be identical, unchanged.
Yes, but as I have explained twice already, IT DOESN'T STAY THAT WAY! Let me break it down as simply as I possibly can for you:
1. Having two copies of one gene doubles the mutation potential because the duplicates replicate independently during mitosis/meiosis and most mutations occur due to transcription errors during replication
2. Therefore, the original and the duplicate will not necessarily mutate in the same way
3. Voila! Instead of two identical copies of one gene, you now end up as many as four different versions of one gene (depending on when in the process the change occurred), all of which replicate independently and can also undergo different mutations, leading to eight different versions of the same gene, etc.
Now obviously, the body has mechanisms that prevent such a high rate of mutation in practice, but it's theoretically possible for mutations to increase exponentially from what started out as identical copies.
For evolution to occur, the item must increase its genetic composition from itself, else the categorical theory goes out the window. Where is the "new" data coming from?
I really have no idea where you two are getting this idea. It doesn't necessarily need to add "new" genetic material at all. All it needs to do is replace one set of base sequences with a different one, which happens all the time as a result of transcription errors during DNA replication. If the new trait is unfavorable, it will get selected back out of the population. If it is favorable, it will get selected for in the population, and increase its prevalence.
Kerry, I get that. This is where my thought was heading:
Suggests a devolving of information within. In a pair of genes, one would have more data. But to evolve, one or more must add information --apart from the original 'perfect' gene. Even at 30k years, of information swapping, in a single set of genes, would still be the same, maybe not identical but the same.
I know this applies heavily to quantified theories specifically where the interaction of particles of dominant + and equal - can produce a submissive 0. Even still, the properties of them do not increase their data. The increase is in compounding similar elements into molecules, etc.
Here is your mistake 21:
"For evolution to occur, the item must increase its genetic composition from itself, else the categorical theory goes out the window."
This is incorrect.
"Transcription errors" can be favorable or unfavorable, and this does not suggest a "devolving" of information. You do not need to add more information for a change to occur.
Marcus, it was not a mistake actually, just a lack of clarity on my part:
Devolving is not necessarily derogatory toward Dawkins, Kerry or the gene itself. Devolving is omission. As Kerry exemplified.
Unless new data is injected into the genetic sequence (naturally or synthetically), the item will not evolve (become better than itself or something else all together). If a sequence for human fingers devolved, it might cause humans to have 3 fingers and a thumb. None the less, the code for it would always be the same -regardless the transmission. It would not become a fin, paw or bird foot.
[off topic comment: there are some theories that suggest humans carry the genes of all animal and plant life, ability to regrow limbs, regeneration, survival in any climatic condition, etc]
pretty sure those "theories" are hypotheses at best.
Devolving isn't in anyway an accurate term for anything when discussing evolution. This shows an inaccurate understanding of evolution:
Even if humans eventually turned into 1 celled organisms that couldn't do anything cool, we wouldn't have "devolved" we simply would have become better suited to our environment --- because for this to happen, we would definitely have a weird environment!
Exactly why not? The inclusions of evolving must not leave out their polar balance. But that is just like any other belief system, it includes or discards what it sees fit to print --be it the bible, times magazine of scientific America. Besides that point...
Devolving is omitting data from the collective of frequencies that make up genetic coding, passing from one to the other. -- light frequencies, in fact. But, as stated recently, lowering the surface tension of a hydrogen molecule and expanding the electric field (h-), does not make it mutate into plutonium, even if it had a b-zillion years to try. It cannot.
So, the information/transmission (frequencies) shared by a pair of genes will always be the same. One side might be dominant progressive, the other submissive absorptive, devolving a equal reflective. This causes differences in each species. (i.e. radiation effect on plants). So yes, things "adapt" to their environment or are removed. They are removed if the original frequency is not in them to maintain their physic. So the notion of genetic "progression" which is often referred to as evolving is also devolving at the same time. This keeps things in form, else genetic chaos would erupt...
devolving is just another term for "evolving, just not in the way that some random person/sentient being might think is good".
Whenever the term "devolve" is used, it's often used because the person isn't fully aware of how evolution works - there is no "end point" that we can evolve away from; there is no "better state of existence for a species"
Devolving implies someone / something has a "better" genetic make-up than another, and this isn't exactly right.
That is not correct.
devolve: to pass on or delegate; transmit according to specific guidelines, necessities of;
devolution: a reversal of evolution, a return to past forms(which I strongly disagree with this definition. Evolution in reverse is still evolution. Reverse is a polarity).
Volution: revolving motion; perpetual motion;
Perpetual motion is seen as fore or aft, more or less. But in a spheric/cubic application, the three [known] frequencies are at work. Each has its own volume: volute, evolute or devolute-- according to the necessity of the particles place in that instance [ 3³ ].
Applying this to the originating gene: there are 27 prim probabilities for a single mitosis of the gene. Based on those probabilities, one or more of these sequences can be dominant, equal or submissive to the others. Thus, seemingly "leaving out" information. However, the item in question is still identical, though subject to the necessity and or result of the transmission (the mutation). The information is always the same. Thus, no additional/new information exists.
[that's a really rough explanation...]
You are under a couple mistaken perceptions here.
First, the original version of the gene is not "perfect," just original. Sometimes a transcription error causing a change to the sequence of bases in a gene is harmful and sometimes it's beneficial. Frequently it's totally neutral, or can be either harmful or beneficial, depending on circumstances.
Second, transcription errors do not constitute a "devolving" of information, because that implies removal or breakdown. Transcription errors replace one base pair with another, that is all.
Therefore, in two different copies of a gene, one mutated and one not, neither has "more" information than the other, if "information" is defined as the number of base pairs within the gene.
A gene that reads: ACGGTAGCT
could be changed to: ATGGTAGCT
This would change the resulting amino acid sequence from cysteine-histidine-arginine to tyrosine-histidine-arginine, which would change the function of the protein.
Both of the alleles on this imaginary gene have nine base pairs containing three codons producing a protein consisting of three amino acids, but the proteins produced are different and have a different effect on the organism's phenotype.
The "information" that is increased by mutation is genetic variation - the number of possible alleles for each gene - not the size of the genome itself.
For example, maybe the original allele of the imaginary gene we talked about above codes for white flowers in the common pea, and the mutated allele codes for purple flowers. The number of base pairs in the sequence is exactly the same, but now you've got two possible traits instead of one, a 100% increase.
The interplay between genetic variation and the environment is what drives evolution. For example, if the purple flowers attract more pollinators, then the allele for purple flowers will gradually become more common within the population of peas. If, on the other hand, white flowers attract more pollinators, then the trait for purple flowers may disappear again within a few generations.
And if white flowers attract more of one sort of pollinator and purple flowers attract more of another, then the percentage of white flowers will increase in areas with high populations of one type of pollinator and the percentage of purple flowers will increase in areas with high populations of the other. If the regions are separated in some way, so the two populations are no longer able to interbreed, the accumulated mutations can pile up enough in each population that they become entirely different species. If the populations remain connected, they'll keep trading genes (original and mutated) back and forth with each other and the percentage of white to purple flowers will remain in a more or less constant state of flux, depending on factors such as the relative dominance of one or the other type of pollinator, until some other mutation comes along to introduce a new variable.
Which means all of the women who die from it are lesbians?
So Dawkins did not use the condom, that's why mutation took place? Or was it Darwin who did not? You've got me confused, sorry...
I guess, we'll never know, who was the first - chicken or egg?
Apparently, you haven't been watching the world over the last 150 years. Science is pulling sensationalism closer than ever before. Now they call it Quality [of Life]. It took a few thousand years and a lot of marital issues, but they have finally reconciled. Heaven help us all...
The difference between science and dogma is this:
When science encounters evidence that refutes its worldview, it studies the evidence, determines its validity, and when it's shown to be valid, incorporates the new evidence into an updated worldview.
When dogma encounters evidence that refutes its worldview, it ignores it, ridicules it, suppresses it, or otherwise refuses to consider the possibility that dogma might have been mistaken.
Somebody has just stitched the answer to a different question on to the end of a different question.
And lets face it, you are going to make fun of an athiest THEOLOGIST for having to pause to think about getting the answer correct for a question about genetics?!
It's like asking a builder to program a computer. They may use a computer occasionally, but in depth gene theory is something that anyone would need to pause to think about.
His answer is just trying to explain that modern day fish did not evolve in to modern day humans. They come from two different evolutionary paths.
The question: "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" I can give several 'unprecedented' examples, as yet unknown to science and religion. They won't fit into this little box, but they do fit into my hubs.
There is just so very much about man that Evolution cannot explain.
As stated by this man...
And here also...
Nothing on his list of, "Limits Of Natural Selection As Applied To Man", has to this day been checked off.
These include but are not limited to the human brain, the organs of speech and articultion, the human hand (ulnar oppisition, etc.), and the external form with its upright posture and bi-pedal gait.
Wallace saw the flaws in this theory... which many today try thier damndest to ignore and deny.
Now, even if we say that new information can be added to the digital code within the genome (and I am not saying that at all.), then we start a never ending cascade of higher order regulatory systems throughout, as to the funtion of said information, each increase creates a cascade of increases in the higher regulatory systems.
Which again, we cannot explain, nor show an example of.
The fact is, the example does not exist.
"Duplicate", is not, "New.
"Duplicate", is not, "New."
No, but "extra" is.
Humans usually have 23 chromosome pairs. Down's syndrome creates an extra chromosome pair. Someone with Down's syndrome has 24 chromosome pairs. That's one extra place for information to go, one extra way to differentiate one's offspring (assuming one produces offspring with a person who also has the extra chromosome) from everyone else's.
You can accept these facts and incorporate them into your worldview (perhaps growing as a person), or you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend they don't exist, or do all manner of (il)logical gymnastics so that you can pretend that they're wrong and that your worldview doesn't need to be updated.
The choice is yours.
Re-hashing old posts does not prove the point... downs syndrome is a stutter in the genetic code, not the addition of new code.
And the ignorance lies in those who push something unknown, as known.
Extra is not "new".
Stop trying to redefine words for your own purpose, Jeff.
You said... "That's one extra place for information to go, one extra way to differentiate one's offspring (assuming one produces offspring with a person who also has the extra chromosome) from everyone else's."
So by your reasong, two down-syndrome individuals should be able to pro-create, (which we know they can), and thier offspring would be a new emergence of a type of man. Some obsevable change in the genetic make-up, or some observable trait to verify this new info.
Funny... from what I know, when two individuals with DS pro-create thier child is either normal... no new info added or acted upon at the gentic level.
Or they have a child with DS themselves. (or maybe some worse genetic defect that causes even more trouble for those who suffer from it than DS.)
Unless I am missing the proof of a child of two DS individuals being born with new info, and thus redirecting some evolutionary aspect of man to another step through the ladder, and proving your point about new gentic code?
Then I don't see the support for your arguement.
Do you have such an example?
"Re-hashing old posts does not prove the point."
Deliberately ignoring or disbelieving in facts does not make them untrue.
"Stop trying to redefine words for your own purpose, Jeff."
I haven't, but tell you what, I won't start if you'll stop.
"So by your reasong, two down-syndrome individuals should be able to pro-create, (which we know they can), and thier offspring would be a new emergence of a type of man."
No, that does not logically follow, not for anyone who has any understanding of genetics at all. You wouldn't abracadabra poof get a brand new species within a generation.
But hey, thanks for demonstrating your lack of understanding of genetics. Now we can dismiss your assertions until you demonstrate a better understanding of the subject.
I didn't say species... that is your word. I said trait or characteristic thus moving us forward so to speak.
You flew to species.
But good dodging on the answer, Jeff.
Of course you could be confused by the term "type of man", but I wouldn't imagine that if your so smart. A change in a body type, fatter, stouter, taller, thicker, thinner, bald, blue, six fingered, etc... not species.
"I didn't say species... that is your word."
Whoops, my bad. I did jump. Sorry about that.
Also, I misstated the bit about someone with Downs having 24 pairs of chromosomes. That was a hiccup, and it was false. They have 23, with one of the pairs (the 21st) having an extra chromosome. Or, they have 22 pairs and one triad.
As for a new "type of man," though, sure, but only over time, not with the immediate next generation. People with Down's syndrome exhibit a certain set of physical traits. If enough folks with Down's were to have offspring with each other, we'd probably [over the course of a long, long time, over many generations, not overnight] see the emergence of a new 'race,' with its own characteristic traits, with the difference being that this 'race' has an extra copy of one of the links in its genetic chain: there would be a huge (genetically speaking) difference between the hypothetical Down's race and the rest of the human race.
One could even hypothesize (and this is distinct from theorize, understand) that given time, the hypothetical Down's 'race' might bear offspring with a hypothetical "double Down's syndrome" where instead of one extra copy of the chromosome, there would be two, and the extra pair would make 24 in total.
An interesting thought experiment, but there's no way [ethically or practically] to carry out such an experiment with human subjects.
If we could find a Down's syndrome analogue in a short-lifespan species, like fruit flies or mice or something, we could conduct such an experiment. In fact, I'd be surprised if one hasn't been at least proposed by now...
each one of us is a different species, and all of our offspring are constantly moving away from everyone we don't mate with.
... but our "reproduction genes" aren't different enough to prevent us from mating. I can still mate with any race of human on the planet (well, most of them - obviously those that are sterile are not an option)
Oh, you could mate with them. Having offspring, though? That's different.
Plus your wife would probably kill you.
indeed- i could mate with them (i mean I would have offspring, but ... i guess that's a bit different... It's what i meant though).
And then, yes, that cute girl in my photo would murder me....
... but my genetic material would have already been passed on!
Wallace simply shows his own ignorance in biology more than anything else. He seems to assume that since he cannot explain how a body adapts to something biologically, it disproves natural selection as a whole.
While Wallace is by no means a stupid man, he picks and chooses quotations, theories, and facts from these people to build up theories and make them appear as if he had proof.
Wallace never said his positions dis-proved Evolution. He said it calls into the question the applicability of Evolution on human development.
And again, his list still stands after more than a century. And in this day more could be added to that list, like the info we have been debating in this thread.
I wrote a long post about this, and then realised that I am wasting too much time doing this.
I will simplify it as
All of his points can easily be disproven
If you cannot see the benefits and disadvantages of each point, especially hair, then a quick read up on each subject will provide you with plenty of material on how each of his points could have been affected by natural selection.
The only one I cannot comment on is brain size, I know nothing about it, nor the biology of creatures and men which he talks about. the biology of the brain. nevertheless his point only disproves the fact that the size of the brian is proportional to intelligence, it does not have any impact in natural selection other than to say that it is near enough irrelevant to natural selection.
I believe his point is that the time frame involved for development of the brain size, is at odds with the chronology of human development through Evolution.
Not enough time... as with the big bang theory, and cool down rate for mass and formation of all the bodies and systems we see today.
Not enough time.
Time is an important factor in all things.
Also. Why is it we are the only species to reach the point we have? And how did it occur so seemingly fast?
To dismiss Wallace so quickjly tells me you either are young, or just do not care. Evolutionary biologhists to this day, even though they may not agree with him, do not dismiss him in such a non-chalont way.
Again, his list has not had one item ticked off as resolved.
So that answer doesn't cut it.
Let me try to explain how your argument is nonsense.
You are arguing "evolution can't explain *random thing #57*, thus it is wrong".
This is nonsense.
Newton, Feynman, Hawking, Einstein, Every scientist alive, has tried to explain the simple, everyday, undeniable, always-used-but-never-explained phenomena of inertia.
There is, to this date, NO SINGLE EXPLANATION OF WHY INERTIA HAPPENS!!! Why is it that when i throw a ball, it still moves after I use force to move it? Why is it that the voyager spacecraft still floats through space instead of stopping and not moving at all?
We have never explained inertia.
Is Newton wrong? is einstein wrong? is EVERY TEXTBOOK EVER WRITTEN ON PHYSICS WRONG?!? Is EVERY SINGLE THEORY USING INERTIA WRONG?!!? Did humans actually NEVER go to the moon, simply because we can't explain inertia?!
Thus, just because Evolution fails to explain a few things here or there, it is NOT wrong. It just isn't 100% complete - it likely never will be complete!! Physics will never explain everything completely - there will always be something that needs explaining.
BUT TO SAY THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG BECAUSE IT CAN'T EXPLAIN SOMETHING IS INACCURATE!!!! Evolution is used on a daily basis to create new medicines and new types of food; The laws of physics are used on a daily basis to do just about anything you could think of.
Your claim that evolution is wrong because it's incomplete -- even though we use it every day --- is EXACTLY like saying that physics is wrong because it's incomplete-- even though we use it everyday.
Sorry, TM, you're just wrong on this one.
"People who are born with Down syndrome, characterized by varying degrees of mental retardation, heart defects and immune system deficiencies, have an extra copy of chromosome 21. Most people have two copies of each chromosome. People with Down syndrome have three copies of this chromosome."
So they start with stating they have, "decoded", the chromosome 21, then add this lil back-tracking moment of lucidity.
"The DNA sequences of both chromosomes are ?finished.? The sequence data is highly accurate - since each area of the chromosome has been ?read? about nine times. The only gaps in the sequence are areas of the chromosome that cannot be deciphered or ?read? with current technology. The scientists have identified the location and size of each of the gaps."
So they have not deciphered it... at least not completely.
Seems to me to be another example science exagerrating their accomplishments.
Not that I do not applaud these findings so far... but to say you have "decoded" it.... then say all but the, "gaps", that we cannot read or decode, is assinine.
Reason being is they are not looking at the gap as a part of the chromo. The can "see" the dominant properties of the sequence and the gap, but forget there are three [known] prim energies, that never "disappear" from the sequence. The sequence itself shows them all three are always there...
Not at all. You appear to be confused or are trying to deceive. They have deciphered the sequence with great accuracy. The fine details of the gaps in the sequence which they also have sequenced are still under investigation.
Have they decoded 100% of that chromosome?
Cause the article states they have decoded all but the gaps.
That is not 100%
Simply pointing out what the article itself states beel... not trying to be anything, other than specific. If they have decoded it 100%, then why point out that the gaps remain un-decoded?
The gaps are either part of the chromosome, or not. But they include them as a part of it, and an un-decoded part of it, at that.
21 says they are not including the gaps as part of the chromosome... which one is correct?
A part of it... or not?
I am just seeking clearification here... so piss on the question if you want.
But I am asking because it is not clear to me how the gaps are being considered here.
I would think if they are in the chromosome they are a part of it... you tell me. And if they are not... then why are they not?
Again, are you confused or trying to deceive:
"The sequence data is highly accurate..."
Where in that sentence do you see the word 'decoded?'
"Decoded" is in the article.
Did you not read it, beel.
And stop acussing me of trying to lie... I am asking you about the gaps.
And still no answer, so who is being deceptive.
You stated... "They have deciphered the sequence with great accuracy. The fine details of the gaps in the sequence which they also have sequenced are still under investigation"
Note "gaps in the sequence are still under investigation"
Translation... not decoded or deciphered fully as of yet.
So, they do not know the entire code of the chromosome as of yet. As I said, another exagerration.
And who is the one being decietful?
It is you who keep ignoring what you yourself posted.
Again... "They have deciphered the sequence with great accuracy. NOTE ->The fine details of the gaps in the sequence which they also have sequenced ARE STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION"
Again, under investigation... not fully known or understood.
Damn you science types just cant help but exagerrate the knowledge understood, to try and make yourself look good.
And I am not confused, even though your trying your best to confuse the issue. If they knew what the gaps were all about, (coded or decoded wise), then they would NOT be still under investigation.
That is a simple concept be.
The junk genes, or the ghost genes, or the repetitive genes, or the genes that separate one gene from another on a chromosome, hold the secrets of life. There are hundreds of chromosome number faults. A male should be X and Y sex chromosomes, but there are males XXXX and Y (they usually want to be a female), and there are males X and YYYY (they are usually violent psychopaths). There's Klinefelter's syndrome (a male is XX and Y), Turners syndrome (a female is X and 0), etc, the list goes on and on. Read my hubs, they will tell you the purpose of the 'secret' genes, and the missing 24th human chromosome.
I should also like to point out that Richard Dawkins is supercilious and pretentious, and knows nothing of any value. He is a graduate from the university of the bleeding obvious.
Yes, I did, but maybe you didn't. Show me exactly where the word "decoded" appears in that article and I will eat my words. If you can't show me that, then you eat your words.
You are. The gaps are under investigation, the article NEVER stated anything otherwise.
Again, if you can show me where exactly in the article they claimed to have "decoded" the gaps entirely, I'll eat my words or you will eat yours.
I would submit it is you, anyone can see that by reading the article.
They have "sequenced" the code and never claimed to "know the entire code"
I'm not ignoring anything. Where in the article do they claim that it is fully known or understood? Eat your words.
Deciphered, decoded, gimme a break.
Do you alway obfuscate issues over minor pionts of articulation?
Just a quick reminder everyone! AN answer to the question Dawkins was asked, by lying, conniving, jerk-wad creationist bastards, is ...
... DOWN SYNDROME - people with down syndrome have 47 chromosomes instead of just 46!! They have MORE genetic information than "normal" humans.... and just about every person I've met with Down Syndrome has been really really nice!
... and just to blow your mind even more, did you know that EACH one of your cells (with, perhaps, the exception of one or two types of cells) has 2, possibly even 3(! -- plants have 4) living organisms inside it? The spindles, the Mitochondria, possibly the ribosomes, and the chloroplasts of plant cells are all living organisms that have separate genetic information in them!!
... and just to blow minds even further - you have billions of bacteria in your stomach right now helping you digest your food! If it weren't for these bacteria eating your food and pooping inside you, you wouldn't be able to survive!!!
... and one more thing... Your body is horribly "designed" for standing up right! we get back pain, broken legs and knees so easily, our eyes are horribly "designed" -- light has to pass through blood and tissue before getting to the rods and cones, and numerous areas of the body wrap around weird parts of my body in a way that would only make sense if I were a 4-legged animal!
Creationism is nonsense! These facts (and much much much more) are all evidence that Creationists have no idea what they're talking about... (because many of them don't know these basic facts).
by toobsucker5 years ago
Darwinian evolution (atheistic evolution) requires 100% of all biological systems to be subject to the mechanisms proposed for evolutionary change, yet the conserved elements are not subject to any of the evolutionary...
by lizzieBoo5 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is...
by Spaghetti Monster7 years ago
While I was quaffing one of my latest products in the beer factory, I pondered the following.Creationists believe that God created the world in 6 days, and that Adam and Eve were happy in the garden of Eden until a...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Did Richard Dawkins direct Atheists to deride and ridicule religion?
by Sooner283 years ago
The first point I want to make is that Craig acted very immaturely when he used an empty chair to critique Dawkin's arguments in the God delusion. I have no problem critiquing what someone claims, in writing or...
by Julianna4 years ago
If you are familiar with Richard Dawkins he now admits he cannot disprove that God does not exist. On a scale of 1 to 10, he states he is a 6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ostic.html Interesting not...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.