Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[wolf]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I won't lie, I didn't even read TW's second set of posts. It's not that important to me.

I suspect that you fear that it will cause you to question.

TW makes a lot of good, interesting, coherent points (that is my non-christian Christmas gift to you, tw ... nice series of posts).

[Torrere]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

There has NEVER been any record of information GAIN in any life form scientists have studied. Mutation and Speciation happen, but these involve LOSS or CORRUPTION of EXISTING material.

However --

Information GAIN certainly does occur. One example is gene duplication: occasionally, when DNA is passed from generation to generation, sequences of DNA are duplicated. Usually the duplicate information immediately follows the original information, but sometimes it moves to an entirely different location. Gene duplication is widely acccepted, and has been examined for over 30 years now. According to this article published in 2001 in Science,

Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years.

This page is a good starting point for looking into gene duplication and explains it reasonably well for the laity.

One of the interesting experiments concerned depriving cells which normally required glucose of glucose and providing them instead with another sugar, xylose.

Cells from the chemostat were analysed and found to have gained multiple copies of genes responsible for an early stage in glucose metabolism. These additional genes occured as tandem repeats, a section of DNA repeated a number of times over in sequence.

In this situation multiple copies were advantageous because the gene responsible for glucose break down was not 100% specific for glucose. The enzyme had a weak side specificity for xylose. By amplifying the gene, that is having multiple copies, enough of the enzyme was produced to metabolise xylose.

In case you require extra special evidence, this paper, entitled "Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment" describes the preceding experiment (or a verification of it).

We analyzed a population of baker’s yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and
demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition.

Not only was information gained [information was duplicated and hence there was more overall information], but the extra information was an improvement over the information existing at the beginning of the experiment.

[Troubleshooter]

If we have all of these works from Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Xenophon, etc., guys who predate Jesus by hundreds of years, why are there no writings directly attributable to his own hand?

[Griff]

Don't we know Aristotle through Plato or am I misundermembering Philo 101.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Griff

Don't we know Aristotle through Plato or am I misundermembering Philo 101.

I just picked a few as they fell out of my head.

My question is in regards to them writing and being preserved over a time that goes back before the alleged Jesus and Jesus popping up and leaving nothing.

[Griff]

My point being that we only know the "alleged" Aristotle because Plato wrote his stuff down. There is really no doubt that Jesus existed. Everything else about him is open for debate.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Griff

My point being that we only know the "alleged" Aristotle because Plato wrote his stuff down. There is really no doubt that Jesus existed. Everything else about him is open for debate.

Oh, that, yeah, Plato wrote about Socrates. That's why he wasn't in the list.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Griff

There is really no doubt that Jesus existed.

There are a lot of people that would disagree with you, bro...me included.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Torrere

However --

Information GAIN certainly does occur. One example is gene duplication: occasionally, when DNA is passed from generation to generation, sequences of DNA are duplicated. Usually the duplicate information immediately follows the original information, but sometimes it moves to an entirely different location. Gene duplication is widely acccepted, and has been examined for over 30 years now.

Duplication is not adding new information. It's still the same info, just duplicated.

If I have cell A, B, C and D, and I duplicate C, I have A, B, C, C, and D. I don't have a gain of information. C was there to begin with. What I mean by gain of information is somehow getting an E from somewhere. That is what is required for the evolutionary theory to work (molecules to man).

[quote] According to this article published in 2001 in Science,

Whole quote of article referenced, my emphasis in bold
Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA. mlynch@oregon.uoregon.edu

Gene duplication has generally been viewed as a necessary source of material for the origin of evolutionary novelties, but it is unclear how often gene duplicates arise and how frequently they evolve new functions. [/i] [So, basically, this theory really needs to work, but we aren't sure how or how often.] [i]Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period. However, the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection. Although duplicate genes may only rarely evolve new functions, the stochastic silencing of such genes may play a significant role in the passive origin of new species.

There is so much wrong with that "story" that I'm surprised you bothered to link it. First, this is all guesswork based off of a computer simulation database. Second, they are guessing that the mutation/duplicate rates stay constant over time (or didn't account for the flux). Third, according to my (usually flawed) math, that's one duplicate gene every 100 million years. Most of those duplicated don't do any thing, and if they do, they don't do anything relating to new functions. This was a irrelevant story anyway, because gene duplication is not adding new information, which is required for molecules to man origins.

This page is a good starting point for looking into gene duplication and explains it reasonably well for the laity.

Well, I'm a laity, but I was still lost. Try here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/genetics.asp

In case you require extra special evidence, this paper, entitled "Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment" describes the preceding experiment (or a verification of it).

Not only was information gained [information was duplicated and hence there was more overall information], but the extra information was an improvement over the information existing at the beginning of the experiment.

But more overall information is not new information. I think the problem here is the way I described it (my fault). See above about ABC and D and the link I posted, that describes the 4 main genetic changes in regards to origins.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Duplication is not adding new information. It's still the same info, just duplicated.

Until it mutates.

If I have cell A, B, C and D, and I duplicate C, I have A, B, C, C, and D. I don't have a gain of information. C was there to begin with. What I mean by gain of information is somehow getting an E from somewhere. That is what is required for the evolutionary theory to work (molecules to man).

The second C will mutate differently from the first C. So you start with ABCD, go to ABCCD, and then A'B'C'C"D'.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Until it mutates.The second C will mutate differently from the first C. So you start with ABCD, go to ABCCD, and then A'B'C'C"D'.

Agreed. But that's not new information. That is mutation of the same information. Show me where we get an E and we'll talk about gain of information.

Having 3 legs is not the same as having 2 legs and wings.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Agreed. But that's not new information. That is mutation of the same information. Show me where we get an E and we'll talk about gain of information.

When C' and C" are eventually different enough, you can call one of them E.

[Torrere]

All theories face the same level of harsh judgement. If there isn't enough information given to prove one way, there isn't enough to prove the other way either.

There are, however, methods of evaluating which theories are more likely to be correct, such as Occam's Razor, checking for internal consistency, review by third parties (harsh judgement), and logic.

I'm not sure whether Onyx accepts building evidence out of pre-existing evidence by 'doing the math'.

[OnyxCougar]

Federal judge rules evolution disclaimer stickers must be removed from Georgia, USA textbooks
U.S. District Judge, Clarence Cooper, ruled today (January 13) that the evolution disclaimer sticker placed in the front cover of some high-school biology textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia, USA, is unconstitutional and violates the so-called “separation between church and state.” As a result of the ruling, the sticker, which includes the following words, must be removed:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

In 2002, Cobb County (near Atlanta) adopted a policy to place disclaimer stickers in the front of high-school biology textbooks that present evolutionary ideas, but caution the readers that evolution is “not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” That decision by the school district was challenged in U.S. federal court by six parents of Cobb students and the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, who argued that the sticker pushes creationism (note, however, that there is no mention of creationism or anything religious in the wording above) and discriminates against non-Christians and followers of a number of other religions.