nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Talk:Patterns of biological evolution (view source)
Revision as of 13:02, June 11, 2008
, 13:02, June 11, 2008→Chemical Evolution
== Additional New Genetic Information==
== Additional New Genetic Information==
This is very misleading. Evolution does not require an addition of new genetic material to occur, a rearrangement of current material can produce drastic results. Let’s look at sickle cell anima for example. Its primary cause is due to a hydrophilic glutamate (Glu) being substituted by the hydrophobic valine (Val), which reduces the solubility of ß-globin. In this case, this mutation causes hemoglobin to form linear polymers linked by the hydrophobic interaction between the valine groups causing sickle-cell deformation of erythrocytes. This mutation is genetically passed between heterozygous carriers and helps to fend off the protozoa that cause malaria. Homozygous carriers tend to have complications due to a reduction of O2 in the blood volume. This is all due to a single point mutation of a codon that switches adenine to uracil during transcription, the DNA has the point mutation of an adenine changing to a thymine. This is not based off of new genetic material but off existing genetic material. The genomic size is the same as before since there was not an addition of nucleotides. Many proponents of evolutionary theory use the "increase of genetic material" argument but it is considered unfounded since complexity is not proportional to genomic size, just the order in which it is arranged.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
This is very misleading. Evolution does not require an addition of new genetic material to occur, a rearrangement of current material can produce drastic results. Let’s look at sickle cell [[anemia]] for example. Its primary cause is due to a hydrophilic [[glutamate]] (Glu) being substituted by the hydrophobic [[valine]] (Val), which reduces the solubility of ß-globin. In this case, this [[mutation]] causes hemoglobin to form linear [[polymer]]s linked by the hydrophobic interaction between the valine groups causing sickle-cell deformation of [[erythrocyte]]s. This mutation is genetically passed between [[heterozygous]] carriers and helps to fend off the protozoa that cause malaria. Homozygous carriers tend to have complications due to a reduction of O2 in the blood volume. This is all due to a single point mutation of a codon that switches adenine to uracil during transcription, the DNA has the point mutation of an adenine changing to a thymine. This is not based off of new genetic material but off existing genetic material. The genomic size is the same as before since there was not an addition of nucleotides. Many proponents of evolutionary theory use the "increase of genetic material" argument but it is considered unfounded since complexity is not proportional to genomic size, just the order in which it is arranged.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
: Whether or not evolution requires new genetic information is, in a sense, the crux of the whole debate. You ''cannot'' go from the supposed first living cell to the variety of life that we have today ''without'' the addition of new genetic [[information]], so I would argue that evolution most certainly ''does'' require the addition of new genetic information.
: Whether or not evolution requires new genetic information is, in a sense, the crux of the whole debate. You ''cannot'' go from the supposed first living cell to the variety of life that we have today ''without'' the addition of new genetic [[information]], so I would argue that evolution most certainly ''does'' require the addition of new genetic information.
::: As for the claim that any change is evolution, I may have overstated the case a touch, but when evolutionists define evolution as "[[definitions of evolution#Gene_frequency|any change in gene frequency in a population]]", that comes pretty darned close. And I've seen transfer of genetic material used by evolutionists attempting to refute the creationist anti-evolutionary argument that no increase in genetic information has been observed. In effect, they are quoting that as an example of evolution.
::: As for the claim that any change is evolution, I may have overstated the case a touch, but when evolutionists define evolution as "[[definitions of evolution#Gene_frequency|any change in gene frequency in a population]]", that comes pretty darned close. And I've seen transfer of genetic material used by evolutionists attempting to refute the creationist anti-evolutionary argument that no increase in genetic information has been observed. In effect, they are quoting that as an example of evolution.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You did not say anything about it in your writings, however, most of the sites that are sourced for argument against evolution talk about the need for an increase of genetic material. I personally do not link information with size because information in a very subjective area, what is considered information and what is junk? The genome is only half of what is needed to produce the results for the organisms we have today, you must take into account protein folding. A single translation can result in a protein that has many different functions based off its physical structure (active site locations). But with all of that a side, what matters is what information means, to a biologist genetic material that produces proteins would be considered genetic information, the amoeba I gave as an example produces proteins from all of its genome. I did notice the update in the information page, thank you for the edit.
::::The micro and macro stances, I see it used all of the time on uncommondesent. Behe and Demski use it often to refer to different mechanisms of evolution, to either validate their claim or invalidate their opposition’s claims. It has been used by many of the creationist organizations in the US still. I do not understand your statement of loss of genetic information. If I interpret what you said correctly then it would not be a loss of genetic information as much as a modification of genetic information. For example sickle cell anemia. If you have it only the cells that contain the allies for it will produce those proteins. This is why the heterozygous carriers do not exhibit the phenotype typical of a homozygous carrier. This is just an example where you have the mutation but also retain past characteristics. But beyond that, how can you not state that macroevolution is not an extrapolation of microevolution when the continued buildup of mutations changes the organism in physiological ways? Compare homin genome with ape genomes, you will fine similarities in the genomes that attribute to structural and morphological similarities plus genes responsible for the differing traits between the geniuses. Genomic caparisons have been performed on a verity of fish providing for linking of families, geniuses and species, where the differentiation is based on a few hundred differing proteins. You can also research the pax6 gene line and see the morphological development of sensory organs in differing organisms, this gives an amazing account of the genetic similarities between organisms and also providing a well studied history of the mutations of the pax6 gene and the outcomes from the mutations (from compound eyes to human eyes).
::::A rationalization with many supportive observations. Humans have been recording birth and deaths for centuries, to look at this data and deny that the human race has not experienced a change in its birth rate is to deny the evidence that shows it. Whereas linking the data with technological development timelines maybe a rationalization attempt, the overall study of population growth and birth rates is observation and shows a change in said rate.
::::I have seen the claims before, I agree many can be deceptive, however it is once again up to the reader to verify the source of the claim. A masters student knows more than an undergrad but a PhD knows more than a masters. This is why I often point out that a physicist should stick to explaining physics and not try to explain biology and why a biologist should stick with biology and not explain physics. Many of the posts on the AIG site are by people who are outside their area of expertise, not to mention very few with degrees higher that a masters. This holds true for some pro-evolution sites as well. I have a friend who believes in aliens landing on the planet. I tell him the same I tell everyone, check the sources and see if they really are qualified to report on what they are claiming and check to see what motivation they have for doing so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::"''...most of the sites that are sourced for argument against evolution talk about the need for an increase of genetic material.''". I would think that most such sites, and certainly including CMI and AiG, talk about the need for an increase in genetic ''information'', not ''material''.
:::::"''The genome is only half of what is needed to produce the results for the organisms we have today...''". I don't think we know enough about the genome yet to make that sort of claim.
:::::"''The micro and macro stances, I see it used all of the time on uncommondesent. Behe and Demski use it ...''. I said creationary scientists, not Intelligent Designers.
:::::"''It has been used by many of the creationist organizations in the US still.''". I linked to CMI's caution against using it, and AiG have the same page. I don't know about the various smaller groups in America. Perhaps they haven't got the message yet.
:::::Sickle-cell anemia is a ''defect'' that is harmful to the carrier, except in the specific case of being exposed to malaria. It is a ''loss'' of some of the information required for a person to be healthy.
:::::"''...how can you not state that macroevolution is not an extrapolation of microevolution... ''". Did you intend that double negative? If you were asking how I can claim that macro- is not an extrapolation of micro-, I did no such thing. I avoided talking about them at all, except to disown them.
:::::Homology arguments ignore that one would expect similar creatures to have similar DNA, being designed by the same God.
:::::I wasn't suggesting that there's been no change in the birth rate. I was saying that nobody has observed as big a long-term change as what would be required by the evolutionary timescale, i.e. essentially static for hundreds of thousands of years.
:::::"''A masters student knows more than an undergrad but a PhD knows more than a masters.''". Yet the definitions weren't from students.
:::::"''Many of the posts on the AIG site are by people who are outside their area of expertise, not to mention very few with degrees higher that a masters''". On the contrary, many of the articles on the AiG site (at least ones predating the end of 2005) are by PhD scientists, and in any case, all those articles are reviewed by people in their fields before being posted.
:::::