|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 5:24:10 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
Hello Gluadys,
You wanted me to respond to your question about genetic information. Would you mind restating it for me? I can't find the specific question you're referring to.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 5:55:37 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Hello Gluadys,
You wanted me to respond to your question about genetic information. Would you mind restating it for me? I can't find the specific question you're referring to.
Thanks.
It was part of post 24 in the emotional argument thread. Sorry that got sidetracked.
Here is the relevant section of that post.
Anyway, I promised something on kinds and genetic information. Your statement was:
quote:
If there are 3,000 species of frog as you say, I believe it is probable that God placed within the frog kind enough genetic information for it to adapt to the various environments it would encounter over the centuries.
To begin with, I would like to ask you how large you think the original population of frogs was. Secondly, I would like to ask you how many copies of the frog genome exist in each frog cell. Then I would like to ask how many copies of the frog genome exist in each gamete produced by the germ-line cells of each frog. How much variety can one pair of frogs pass on to their offspring?
With the answers to these questions we can then deal with how much genetic information can exist in the original frog kind. I would have you remember that if the original frog kind has speciated into 3,000+ distinct species, then according to you statement, every variation found in all those species was front-loaded into the original kind. One consequence of this is that the original genome must have contained all the genetic information that is now divided among 3,000+ species. Whether or not this is possible is something we can figure out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 10:00:46 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
You've shown that you are very well versed in the terminology of the cell. You haven't shared with me if you are a working scientist in this area or an interested layman, but from your comments indicating your faith in science, I'm guessing that you work in that field.
Whether you do or not, in my view you're over-complicating the issues. I've noticed that those of you in the forum defending evolution seem to love straw man and red herring arguments. I won't waste time on how many originally created frogs there may have been because it is obviously something none of us can know.
The point I'm making is that mutation and natural selection do not add new DNA to a cell. They damage it. Now, sometimes certainly, this damaged DNA can work in favor of a creature's survival, but it does not make it grow legs if the information for legs is not already present.
However, DNA is incredibly complex and loaded with information. I've read many descriptions of how long a single strand of human DNA would be if it were unraveled in tact. The consenus seems to be about 7 feet. And that's just one cell. DNA is rich in potential for variation within a species. I don't suppose it would suprise you to know that I believe all humans are offsping of Adam and Eve, the original couple. Six billion plus, in all sizes, shapes and colors, from one couple. But Adam and Eve did not have the information in their DNA for wings, or fins, or scales. So humans will never have them.
Dr. Lee Spetner, formerly of Johns Hopkins University, has spent years searching for that one piece of evidence to show that a mutation can actually increase information. In his book Not By Chance, he said:
"But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information … All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 10:44:30 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
You've shown that you are very well versed in the terminology of the cell. You haven't shared with me if you are a working scientist in this area or an interested layman, but from your comments indicating your faith in science, I'm guessing that you work in that field.
No, I am not and never have been a scientist. My training was in language and literature. I found that training to be an excellent background to the study of the bible. I didn't take any interest in science until my first encounter with YEC. I was originally appalled by the theology, but it led to an interest in science as well--especially evolutionary biology. My only formal study was a 1st-year undergrad course taken only because it was required. Everything else I have learned through self-study.
quote:
Whether you do or not, in my view you're over-complicating the issues.
Unfortunately science is complicated and one does need to pay attention to the details---one of the reasons I would never be a competent professional scientist. I would hate the necessary daily logging of detailed data.
quote:
I've noticed that those of you in the forum defending evolution seem to love straw man and red herring arguments.  From the other side of the fence that looks a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
I assure you, I am not raising a strawman issue.
quote:
I won't waste time on how many originally created frogs there may have been because it is obviously something none of us can know.
True, however, this does not make the population issue unimportant. But it will take the answers to the other questions to make this clear.
How many copies of its genome are found in each cell (including germ line cells) of the frog's body? How many in each mature gamete?
I am sure you do know the answers to these questions. And they will lead us to some pertinent observations on the limits of variation in a population. That, in turn, will lead to some essential conclusions about how much DNA information the original created kind can carry. Conclusions that may not occur to you until you see the math.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 11:01:10 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
You've shown that you are very well versed in the terminology of the cell. You haven't shared with me if you are a working scientist in this area or an interested layman, but from your comments indicating your faith in science, I'm guessing that you work in that field.
Whether you do or not, in my view you're over-complicating the issues. I've noticed that those of you in the forum defending evolution seem to love straw man and red herring arguments. I won't waste time on how many originally created frogs there may have been because it is obviously something none of us can know.
The point I'm making is that mutation and natural selection do not add new DNA to a cell. They damage it. Now, sometimes certainly, this damaged DNA can work in favor of a creature's survival, but it does not make it grow legs if the information for legs is not already present.
However, DNA is incredibly complex and loaded with information. I've read many descriptions of how long a single strand of human DNA would be if it were unraveled in tact. The consenus seems to be about 7 feet. And that's just one cell. DNA is rich in potential for variation within a species. I don't suppose it would suprise you to know that I believe all humans are offsping of Adam and Eve, the original couple. Six billion plus, in all sizes, shapes and colors, from one couple. But Adam and Eve did not have the information in their DNA for wings, or fins, or scales. So humans will never have them.
Dr. Lee Spetner, formerly of Johns Hopkins University, has spent years searching for that one piece of evidence to show that a mutation can actually increase information. In his book Not By Chance, he said:
"But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information … All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
Gene duplication adds DNA.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 11:15:46 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1134
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
You've shown that you are very well versed in the terminology of the cell. You haven't shared with me if you are a working scientist in this area or an interested layman, but from your comments indicating your faith in science, I'm guessing that you work in that field.
The "faith in science" remark is ironically followed by . . .
quote:
The point I'm making is that mutation and natural selection do not add new DNA to a cell. They damage it.
Do you have that much faith in science to make such an argument?
Are we damaged chimps because our DNA is 2% different? Are you damaged goods because you have between 125 and 175 mutations not found in your parents? Are there 6 billion damaged humans being that no two humans have the same DNA (excluding identical twins)?
If I were to give you a DNA sequence could you tell me which changes would result in new information?
quote:
However, DNA is incredibly complex and loaded with information.
DNA is as much a code as the Sun is a clock.
quote:
Dr. Lee Spetner, formerly of Johns Hopkins University, has spent years searching for that one piece of evidence to show that a mutation can actually increase information. In his book Not By Chance, he said:
"But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information … All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
Does changing the chimp genome by 2% result in added information?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 11:55:29 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
HHV5: Gene duplication adds DNA.
I'm afraid that's just not true. If it were, where would the added DNA come from? The word "duplication" means replicating something exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/21/2008 11:57:52 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
Method, my friend, you're going to have to come up with a rational argument if you want me to respond. Little of what you said there makes any sense. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 12:12:07 AM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
quote:
HHV5: Gene duplication adds DNA.
I'm afraid that's just not true. If it were, where would the added DNA come from? The word "duplication" means replicating something exactly.
OK, seriously. Have you read a biology textbook in your life?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 12:21:09 AM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
OK, seriously. Have you read a biology textbook in your life?
A little advice: If you want to have a meaningful conversation with someone and have them take you seriously, offer reasoned responses with examples whenever possible. If you don't have any of those, I'll have to ignore you. No offense, but there are people I'm chatting with who actually make an effort, and my time is limited.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 12:25:57 AM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
quote:
OK, seriously. Have you read a biology textbook in your life?
A little advice: If you want to have a meaningful conversation with someone and have them take you seriously, offer reasoned responses with examples whenever possible. If you don't have any of those, I'll have to ignore you. No offense, but there are people I'm chatting with who actually make an effort, and my time is limited.
You refuted the concept of gene duplication with a dictionary definition of duplication. So no, I don't take you seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 11:05:52 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1134
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Method, my friend, you're going to have to come up with a rational argument if you want me to respond. Little of what you said there makes any sense. Sorry.
Let's start with just one question. Our genome differs from chimps by 2%. Does this 2% change cause us to be damaged chimps?
You state that changes in DNA result in damage, so the only conclusion I can come to is that we are damaged chimps, right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 1:30:08 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3269
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's start with just one question. Our genome differs from chimps by 2%. Does this 2% change cause us to be damaged chimps? I'm sure you know, Method, that we are classified H sapiens while chimpanzees are classified P troglodytes. Thus, you already know that humans are not damaged chimps. If you care to participate rationally, I have a second question for you. Does this alleged 2% difference (it's actually closer to 10%) account for the additional genetic info producing the intellectual superiority of H sapiens over P troglodytes?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 2:35:05 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1134
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I'm sure you know, Method, that we are classified H sapiens while chimpanzees are classified P troglodytes. Thus, you already know that humans are not damaged chimps.
I'm sure you know that both H. sapien and P. troglodytes are classified in the Hominidae family. Does the 2% difference from chimps mean that we are damaged apes?
quote:
Does this alleged 2% difference (it's actually closer to 10%) account for the additional genetic info producing the intellectual superiority of H sapiens over P troglodytes?
Part of that 2% does account for the increased intelligence in our lineage just as that same 2% accounts for all morphological and physiological differences between the species. This is why it is silly to claim that mutations damages DNA. Obviously it doesn't always do that.
ABE: The difference, when counting indels, is closer to 5%. Of the DNA that chimps and humans share there is a 1-2% difference. There is no meaningful comparison that produces a 10% overall difference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 3:06:02 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3269
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does the 2% difference from chimps mean that we are damaged apes? quote:
Of the DNA that chimps and humans share there is a 1-2% difference. It appears rational participation is not forthcoming. Have a nice day, Method.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 4:49:25 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1134
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Does the 2% difference from chimps mean that we are damaged apes? quote:
Of the DNA that chimps and humans share there is a 1-2% difference. It appears rational participation is not forthcoming. Have a nice day, Method.
What is not forthcoming? Of the DNA that chimps and humans share through common ancestry we differ by 2% at the base level. There are fewer differences in orthologous genes than in intergenic regions as one would expect. The 5% is an overall comparison that includes DNA that has been inserted or deleted since common ancestry which would include ERV's, retrotransposons, and relatively rare (compared to substitutions at the base level) conversion events.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 5:57:13 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Does the 2% difference from chimps mean that we are damaged apes? quote:
Of the DNA that chimps and humans share there is a 1-2% difference. It appears rational participation is not forthcoming. Have a nice day, Method.
What is not forthcoming? Of the DNA that chimps and humans share through common ancestry we differ by 2% at the base level. There are fewer differences in orthologous genes than in intergenic regions as one would expect. The 5% is an overall comparison that includes DNA that has been inserted or deleted since common ancestry which would include ERV's, retrotransposons, and relatively rare (compared to substitutions at the base level) conversion events.
I think he's nitpicking at the 2% vs. 1-2%.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/22/2008 6:04:39 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1134
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HHV5
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Does the 2% difference from chimps mean that we are damaged apes? quote:
Of the DNA that chimps and humans share there is a 1-2% difference. It appears rational participation is not forthcoming. Have a nice day, Method.
What is not forthcoming? Of the DNA that chimps and humans share through common ancestry we differ by 2% at the base level. There are fewer differences in orthologous genes than in intergenic regions as one would expect. The 5% is an overall comparison that includes DNA that has been inserted or deleted since common ancestry which would include ERV's, retrotransposons, and relatively rare (compared to substitutions at the base level) conversion events.
I think he's nitpicking at the 2% vs. 1-2%.
Some studies have it at 1.7%, some at 1.5%, etc. I usually round up to 2% to err on the side of my opponents.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 12:44:17 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
It is important to remember that even a 2% difference (no one knows the exact % at this time) means at least 60 million base pair differences. It is also important to remember that because DNA is a linear array of four bases — A,G,C, T — only 4 possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The tells us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every 4 sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25% identical, not 0% identical.
A human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that a flower is "25% human"? No, that's outlandishly ridiculous! We supposedly share 50% likeness with bananas.
Method: quote:
"You state that changes in DNA result in damage, so the only conclusion I can come to is that we are damaged chimps, right? " Only if you, a priori, adopt Darwinian views. And since there is not yet a single valid ape ancestor of humans known, that view is suspicious at best.
quote:
"This is why it is silly to claim that mutations damages DNA. Obviously it doesn't always do that. " The majority of mutations are either deleterious or neurtral. All you have to do is search one of the online mutation data bases to see that virtually every known disease and deformity is rooted in a mutation. Mutations are bugs in the code.
And considering that beneficial mutations are incredibly rare while deleterious ones are not, it raises the question of just how any beneficial mutation could possibly survive the onslaught of all the bad ones. (see Hoyle quote below)
Evolution of any entirely new species crossing form (ex. fish to reptile) by rm + ns is thus highly unlikely from the start - based on the facts.
quote:
"I am convinced it is this almost trivial simplicity that explains why the Darwinian theory is so widely accepted, why it has penetrated through the educational system so completely. As one student text puts it, `The theory is a two-step process. First variation must exist in a population. Second, the fittest members of the population have a selective advantage and are more likely to transmit their genes to the next generation.' But what if individuals with a good gene A carry a bad gene B. having the larger value of |s|. Does the bad gene not carry the good one down to disaster? What of the situation that bad mutations must enormously exceed good ones in number? ... The essential problem for the Darwinian theory in its twentieth century form is how to cope with this continuing flood of adverse mutations, a far cry indeed from the trite problem of only the single mutation in (1.1). Supposing a favourable mutation to occur among the avalanche of unfavourable ones, how is the favourable mutation to advance against the downward pressure of the others?" (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.8-9)
...
A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present-day systems .... With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without L [mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination. (Hoyle "Mathematics of Evolution," 1987, Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.20)
So, Darwinism fails miserably in many areas:
- billions of missing transitionals
- inabilty to cope with DNA/Protein inter-dependance
- no explanation for the origin of bio information
- no explanation for the origin of sexuality
- no explanation for the origin of coded information systems in all life forms
- no explanation for irreducibly complex structures (just-so stories à la Ken Miller don't count)
- no adequate explanation of biological explosions (Cambrian, Avalon etc.)
- no verifiable pathways from simple to extremely complex inter-dependant systems
- no empirical evidence for macro-evo from micro - it's all extrapolation that is now suspected to go against the 'genetic grain' of inherent limitations
- no explanation for why perfectly adapted forms would evolve in the first place while others remain the same for millions of years
....
all this after 150 years of trying.
So : quote:
"Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about. Of course, it depends on the definition of life. To me, autoreplication of a macromolecule does not yet represent life. Even a viral particle is not a life organism, it only can participate in life processes when it succeeds in becoming part of a living host cell. Therefore, I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." (Arber, Werner [Professor of Microbiology at the University of Basel, Switzerland, shared Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1978], "The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution," in Margenau H. & Varghese R.A., eds., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, and Homo Sapiens," [1992], Open Court: La Salle IL, 1993, Second Printing, pp.142-143) seems quite appropriate as a comment.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 2:11:41 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
- billions of missing transitionals
- inabilty to cope with DNA/Protein inter-dependance
- no explanation for the origin of bio information
- no explanation for the origin of sexuality
- no explanation for the origin of coded information systems in all life forms
- no explanation for irreducibly complex structures (just-so stories à la Ken Miller don't count)
- no adequate explanation of biological explosions (Cambrian, Avalon etc.)
- no verifiable pathways from simple to extremely complex inter-dependant systems
- no empirical evidence for macro-evo from micro - it's all extrapolation that is now suspected to go against the 'genetic grain' of inherent limitations
- no explanation for why perfectly adapted forms would evolve in the first place while others remain the same for millions of years
Lets ignore for a second that there are well supported explanations for every single point on your list (read a biology book) and just grant you this wildly inaccurate list, for the sake of argument. How does ID provide explanations to any of these things?
Like so: "Dunno how, but godditit".
Who knew biology was so easy? But in all seriousness... how does ID provide explanations for any of these issues?
< Message edited by drj11 -- 7/23/2008 2:21:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 2:25:19 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
quote:
HHV5: Gene duplication adds DNA.
I'm afraid that's just not true. If it were, where would the added DNA come from? The word "duplication" means replicating something exactly.
It's a multi-step process. (Let's use fetal hemoglobin as an example)
1. Chromosome duplication error duplicates an existing gene.
2. A SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) mutation occurs that changes the oxygen binding affinity of the hemoglobin produced by the duplicate gene.
3. two different genes now exist when before there was only one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 3:54:36 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Swan42: It's a multi-step process. (Let's use fetal hemoglobin as an example)
1. Chromosome duplication error duplicates an existing gene.
2. A SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) mutation occurs that changes the oxygen binding affinity of the hemoglobin produced by the duplicate gene.
3. two different genes now exist when before there was only one.
But the point I'm trying (so clumbsily) to make is that though you now have two genes, there is no useful new information in the cell. The "duplicate" gene is a damaged version of the original one, so it looks different and functions differently, but this is not a route to a new organism with the new features (wings, legs, fins, whatever) that would be required to transform one kind into another over time. What you describe is typical of all point mutations ever studied. It's possible that this mutation you describe might, for some reason be useful to the survival of the organism, but it is not a meaningful change in an evolutionary direction. What you're describing remixes existing information but does not add any.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:04:52 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
quote:
Swan42: It's a multi-step process. (Let's use fetal hemoglobin as an example)
1. Chromosome duplication error duplicates an existing gene.
2. A SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) mutation occurs that changes the oxygen binding affinity of the hemoglobin produced by the duplicate gene.
3. two different genes now exist when before there was only one.
But the point I'm trying (so clumbsily) to make is that though you now have two genes, there is no useful new information in the cell. The "duplicate" gene is a damaged version of the original one, so it looks different and functions differently, but this is not a route to a new organism with the new features (wings, legs, fins, whatever) that would be required to transform one kind into another over time. What you describe is typical of all point mutations ever studied. It's possible that this mutation you describe might, for some reason be useful to the survival of the organism, but it is not a meaningful change in an evolutionary direction. What you're describing remixes existing information but does not add any.
A long journey begins with a single step; and no this is not remixing existing information.
This is according to information theory, new information.
The new gene is incrementally different and contains incrementally new information.
An example of incremental "new information" would be today's closing NASDAQ average when added to all historical NASDAQ closing prices.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:12:07 PM
|
|
|
falcnjet
Posts: 31
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
drj11: Like so: "Dunno how, but godditit".
I guess that's the rub, isn't it? If you don't allow for the possibility of a Creator God, then you must have a natural explanation for the origin of everything. If there is in fact an intelligent
Creator, then things like sexual reproduction, the origin of complex information, irreducible complexity, the origin of matter, the origin of life are legitimately explainable by "god did it (although a respectful Christian would probably capitalize God)." You sound as though that's just an unacceptable, even goofy explanation. I believe that God designed and put in place everything GHitch listed. If that, by definition makes me foolish, or incompetent in your mind, then we don't have much to talk about.
But if you like, pick one of the things that GHitch claims evolution can't explain, and let's talk about it. But let's not ridicule each other's viewpoints. That just makes a discussion an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/23/2008 4:18:54 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
quote:
Swan42: It's a multi-step process. (Let's use fetal hemoglobin as an example)
1. Chromosome duplication error duplicates an existing gene.
2. A SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) mutation occurs that changes the oxygen binding affinity of the hemoglobin produced by the duplicate gene.
3. two different genes now exist when before there was only one.
But the point I'm trying (so clumbsily) to make is that though you now have two genes, there is no useful new information in the cell. The "duplicate" gene is a damaged version of the original one, so it looks different and functions differently, but this is not a route to a new organism with the new features (wings, legs, fins, whatever) that would be required to transform one kind into another over time. What you describe is typical of all point mutations ever studied. It's possible that this mutation you describe might, for some reason be useful to the survival of the organism, but it is not a meaningful change in an evolutionary direction. What you're describing remixes existing information but does not add any.
Let's imagine a fictional species with 32 base pairs (A,T,G or C) in its genome.
4^32 = 1.845 * 10 ^ 19 = 18450000000000000000 possible genome combinations.
Next, let's duplicate these 32 base pairs end-to-end during a mutation for a total of 64 DNA base pairs.
4^64 = 3.403 * 10 ^ 38 = 340300000000000000000000000000000000000 possible genome combinations.
4^64 combinations represent much much more information descriptions than 4^32.
Yes, gene duplication increases genome information.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
