Victory for evolution in Texas

[ElNono]

Wait, wait, wait... that's fresh... most of what you all do here is simplify the processes involved in genetics. If anything, I'm the one trying to assert that genetics is thousands of times more complicated than the way your typical Evolutionist would wish to view it. Afterall, many of them simply accept the theory without ever having taken multiple, or even a single course in either microbiology, molecular genetics, or organic chemistry (some more fallacy of consensus gentium for our resident argumentative fallacy expert, RG)...

With all due respect, that's a very silly argument. We all profess different things based on expert testimony and evidence. Should we want to dig deeper, we're all free to go into the minutiae and re-examine how those conclusions were made. Either by need or curiosity or just liking the field and liking to learn. A big reason why we can rely on certain claims on science have everything to do with the rules of the scientific process, where you're able to discern between factual building blocks and experimental building blocks. That said, what's asked of you in order to dismiss the experimental is to falsify it's claim(s).

My whole qualm with RG's bold "debunked" claim is that; no, I don’t believe that Lenski hasn't created a new species... his variant strains are still E. coli bacteria, down to the genus and species

You all can yell all you all want but the fact remains that for speciation to be proven true one would have to produce a new species [with characterization at a genetic level]... don't give me any of this "in transit" crap evidence, because frankly, it isn’t enough... an honest look from the Scientific Method itself would assert as much, and require more than just extrapolated speculation...

But that's not really true. The actual scientific definition of bacterial species is fairly recent, and there are some authoritative papers that go at lengths about said topic (i.e. this one).

Under those definitions (best we have right now, unless you can propose better), one of the populations did go through speciation:

Based on their phylogenetic history and independent evolutionary trajectories, S and L fulfill one set of criteria for being different asexual species.

link

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate [regardless of the fact that the dynamics for beneficial gamete mutation and propagation in sexual organisms are far more restrictive than the propagation dynamics found in asexual organisms], and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!! Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago… [I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]

Here is where you extrapolate and miss the forest for the tree. It's easy to see why you reach the wrong conclusions, and it's the fact that you forget that this is a controlled experiment.

1) E.Coli is used because it 'only' has 4.6 million base pairs on it's genome (as opposed to over 3 billions for humans). Smaller genome means less information to track and less susceptibility to gene mutation.
2) Only E.Coli is used, again, to remove interactions with other organisms.
3) A small sample set of E.Coli is used.
4) Only one environment is used, again to remove more interactions.
5) Because even after removing all those layers that add complexity, the information is still fairly large, populations are cryogenically frozen and the experiment is conducted on one population at a time.

In nature, the environmental impact on mutations is well do ented, and over the years we've had very significant environmental changes. Also, the interaction with other organisms (such as bacteria) also dictates different mutation and selection routes. And to top it off, the whole things happens all at the same time over an incredible amount of different DNA.

Since you know the experiment manipulates those variables to remove complexity, the proper way to extrapolate would be to multiply such effect by the level of complexity at any given time. It's obvious that by doing so you would get a much richer gene interaction and the mutation process will be much faster and diverse (including much better odds of mutations into duplicate genes).

Again, you all are touting the observations of Lenski's experiments, but don't really understand the ramifications it would have on your very own evolutionary models...

I think some of us do. I don't think you thought through or understood what was entailed in the Lenski's experiments, however.

[RandomGuy]

I did answer... very clearly, in fact... [hand to the face... "I hate it when he does this condescending, speaking to a 'child' crap..." - you do this every time...]



You apparently don't understand the genetic ramifications of your own example, and or the significance of the word 'deleterious' in genetic context... who's the one glossing over arguments here?

So, in short, the answer is yes, using known methods of mutation it is possible to add new information to a genome.

It is less condescending than simply adversarial. I simply want an answer to my question, as asked, not the way you would like to answer it. Take it as condescening if you like, it was not meant that way. When I want to be really condescending, I will make that very clear.

Deleterious does not mean "delete" in genetics. It means harmful.

In this case, consideration of fitness was not relevant.

Your statement:

Mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the organism... .

Is quite provably false when it can be shown that mutations can, and do, result in an increase in information, as a very basic example showed, by your own admission.

[Blake]

Can the natural laws govern something/anything which by very definition supercedes it? Absolutely NOT.

strawman nonsense

[MannyIsGod]

Ahem... the word supernatural existed long before you and I were born...

And by its very definition, it implies exactly what I posted above... sorry if I'm the one that has to break it down for you...

Can the natural laws govern something/anything which by very definition supercedes it? Absolutely NOT.

Nice drive by BTW...

When it was created is irrelevant to the fact that its your favorite cop out. However, I'm going to go ahead and coin EXTRA SUPER NATURAL which by definition will supercede your super natural laws. Now your set of laws will be incomplete and therefor unable to account for what my SUPER EXTRA NATURAL rule set says about the universe and its creation.

As for it being a drive by, I've read enough of your posts on these subjects to know your arguments quite well by this point. Your argument boils down to exactly what BB posted above.

[DarrinS]

Deleterious does not mean "delete" in genetics. It means harmful.

Are you even reading his posts?

Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...

[Blake]

However, I'm going to go ahead and coin EXTRA SUPER NATURAL which by definition will supercede your super natural laws.

:spit coke on screen

[RandomGuy]

Are you even reading his posts?

Yes, it was simply a quick verbal nod to show we were both talking about the same thing and meant the same thing. I know what he is going to get at, but would prefer to take things in smaller steps.

I generally don't regard "Yes, but..." answers as very clear either, especially when the obvious intent is obfuscation of a very clear concept at the heart of a matter.

Edit:

You apparently don't understand the genetic ramifications of your own example, and or the significance of the word 'deleterious' in genetic context

It was a demonstration that I am cognizant of what the word means in the context, contrary to what was claimed.

Do you even read his posts?

[ElNono]

A mutation being 'deleterious' (or harmful) not in all cases ends up having an impact in the organism, given that cells themselves can sometimes repair such DNA damage, and still move on.

[RandomGuy]

A gene being 'deleterious' (or harmful) not in all cases ends up having an impact in the organism, given that cells themselves can sometimes repair such DNA damage, and still move on.

That's where he is going with the "gene network" thing, btw.

(misnomer for gene regulating network) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

The argument will go:

Look cells have this repair mechanism that fixes mutations. That must mean that mutations don't cause evolution.

or something similar.

This argument fails, simply because it relies on ignorance of what such networks do. It is grasping at a straw, or if one prefers throwing at a wall to see if it sticks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

Such regulatory mechanisms will act *at times* to stop some mutations, but not others. About all it does is determine which kinds of mutations will be more common than others.

[ElNono]

That's why I said "not in all cases"...

[LnGrrrR]

There's some that can't be explained. Here me out.

About 10 years ago my mom was doing an essay at the university on the virgin Mary of Guadalupe. The day she completed the 10 page essay, she took a picture of my sister with a polaroid camera before her first dance class. A striking image undeniably in the form of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe (even with a pattern of stars on her dress) was standing next to my sister in the picture once it came out. It's amazing.

Is this a coincidence?

Certainly.

The human mind naturally seeks out patterns; it's what we're wired to do the day my mother's friend died, she heard the friend's favorite song playing on the radio as she was driving home from work. Does that mean it was a sign from God that her friend was alright? She thinks so. I disagree.

[LnGrrrR]

I’ve asked this on several occasions; how can the natural tools provided by the scientific toolset prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural GOD? Again, you’re just reinforcing the notion that Science is ill-equipped (unequipped) to answer the origins riddle, if in fact a Creator were the one true answer (unfalsifiable or not).

Well, by definition, a supernatural creator would be out of nature. Pretty sure that would make it untestable. Of course, you couldn't then use natural phenomena to prove His existence either. You tried to sneak in unfalsifiable OR NOT, but it's just unfalsifiable. (Excluding God from philosophical arguments for the moment.)

And the obvious rejoinder to your North Korean language argument is not that they will be unable to breed, but unable to understand each other's language. Which obviously does happen if two sets of people are separate by enough time and distance.

[RandomGuy]

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

...Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate, and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…

[I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]

You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?

Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.

Facts stated:

1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"

Assumptions made to complete calculation:

1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years

Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000

humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.

The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.

Bull has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.

We will see who is tweaking what.

[Phenomanul]

That's where he is going with the "gene network" thing, btw.

(misnomer for gene regulating network) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

The argument will go:

Look cells have this repair mechanism that fixes mutations. That must mean that mutations don't cause evolution.

or something similar.

This argument fails, simply because it relies on ignorance of what such networks do. It is grasping at a straw, or if one prefers throwing at a wall to see if it sticks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

Such regulatory mechanisms will act *at times* to stop some mutations, but not others. About all it does is determine which kinds of mutations will be more common than others.

Look I don’t have time to respond to everything here… Like always, it seems that for every post I type, I have to argue against 10 different posters… it’s beyond my physical capability to tend to the forum, and to do everything else I need to do in my day…

Anyways, I’ll address this post because your speculative ‘putting arguments’ in my mouth is beyond ridiculous…

That’s not even remotely close to why I referenced gene networks. NOT EVEN CLOSE…

Though I guess I should give you kudos for googling “gene networks” to try and pretend you knew what that meant as a means of staying in the argument. (Yes, I understand this is an ad hominem attack… but your rebuttals are literally lined with them too…)

I actually explained my argument in an earlier post… but you’re too busy trying to respond that you’re not even reading my posts at all… seems like you only react to bits and pieces, phrases here and there… statements you feel can corner me into an,”a-ha, I got you now!” moment… Case in point, you spent several posts arguing over the fact that mutations can provide new information without the context of why I stated that they typically don’t – in other words, you placed your emphasis on trying to prove that new information can indeed be generated, when that wasn’t even the emphasis of my argument at all; the subjective nature involved in the classification of new species was my argument from the get-go <-- specifically in regards to using Lenski’s experiments to claim that neoDarwinian Evolution has been proven fact… but keep latching on to such semantical tangents…

In response to my original qualm ElNono posted links showing that the definition for the classification of bacterial species has recently changed... Does anybody else here not see the utter convenience in such a move? (moving goal posts anyone?) Yeah... the changes might be better suited to classifying bacteria now, but to say that we've observed a bacterium change into another life-form entirely is not even remotely close to anything we've seen in nature, lab or otherwise... Macroevolution would require such a change be confirmed... even while we continue to find evidence for microevolution... Evidence I've never denied has existed....

Anyways, so why did I even reference gene networks?

Put another way….

One protein producing gene segment can be translated in as many as 3 different ways to produce more than just the one protein it is linearly coded to produce (i.e. the same gene segment can produce several different proteins altogether!)… These other pathways are set in motion at the direction of other genes that call for this specific gene to be pulled from a cell’s genome [read that again, THIS specific gene segment].

Hence, IF you were to mutate the code in that gene segment (or spliced it incorrectly) you would be messing with the fidelity of those 3 other translation processes as well. You might also damage its ability to 'call' other gene segments of its own. The NET result is that you’ve likely damaged some of that gene’s function… Again, genetic code is a programming language… not simply “a language”… So what one might initially label a beneficial mutation (on the surface), might end up causing a NET detrimental change. And a researcher trying to assess as much wouldn’t know how to classify the change unless he knew how all of the gene interactions with his segment were affected by such a mutation…

Your wiki articles, while interesting, don’t negate the point I tried to make originally several posts ago… though I wonder if you even understand them…

[ChumpDumper]

Anyways, I've got a couple of errands I need to run... I'm out [I guess I need ChumpDumper's permission to do so?]

When you put yourself on the cross, how to you get that last nail in?

[Phenomanul]

When it was created is irrelevant to the fact that its your favorite cop out. However, I'm going to go ahead and coin EXTRA SUPER NATURAL which by definition will supercede your super natural laws. Now your set of laws will be incomplete and therefor unable to account for what my SUPER EXTRA NATURAL rule set says about the universe and its creation.

As for it being a drive by, I've read enough of your posts on these subjects to know your arguments quite well by this point. Your argument boils down to exactly what BB posted above.

How disingenuous...

I'm not the one making the rules... Only the Creator [or alleged creator in your world view] is capable of setting the bounds for the natural laws HE himself created... If HE made them, HE very well can supercede them... in doing so, HIS very essence is (again, by definition) supernatural...

Go ahead and coin anything you want... you're still bound by the natural laws of our universe. Nothing changes that...

[Blake]

When you put yourself on the cross, how to you get that last nail in?

Supernaturally

[MannyIsGod]

[MannyIsGod]

How disingenuous...

I'm not the one making the rules... Only the Creator [or alleged creator in your world view] is capable of setting the bounds for the natural laws HE himself created... If HE made them, HE very well can supercede them... in doing so, HIS very essence is (again, by definition) supernatural...

Go ahead and coin anything you want... you're still bound by the natural laws of our universe. Nothing changes that...

I'm not bound by any natural laws. I told you I invented the EXTRA SUPER NATURAL laws earlier. I'm not even bound by those, tbh, because I can invent the MEGA NATURAL LAWS when I'm tired of just being EXTRA SUPER NATURAL.

[RandomGuy]

Though I guess I should give you kudos for googling “gene networks” to try and pretend you knew what that meant

If you are going to do like that, quit ing about *anybody* being condecending. Hypocrisy is annoying.

[MannyIsGod]

Its his schtick. He loves to play the martyr while lobbing bombs while hiding behind God's supernatural skirt.

[RandomGuy]

Case in point, you spent several posts arguing over the fact that mutations can provide new information without the context of why I stated that they typically don’t – in other words, you placed your emphasis on trying to prove that new information can indeed be generated, when that wasn’t even the emphasis of my argument at all; the subjective nature involved in the classification of new species was my argument from the get-go

You got pissy because I called you a liar.

I found a lie, and a rather clear, provable one.

That is a rather important aspect of establishing how much emphasis to place on your claims in general.

I think the part that galls you most is that you got caught.

Is it central to your arguments? Nah.

That would be

"You are just being petty and arguing semantics. Now let's all concentrate on how subjective the defintion of "species" is."

[ElNono]

In response to my original qualm ElNono posted links showing that the definition for the classification of bacterial species has recently changed... Does anybody else here not see the utter convenience in such a move? (moving goal posts anyone?)

You're making a claim of skepticism without actually providing a basis for it.
I don't really see a problem with it unless you can claim that such change had to do with accommodating certain interest and not actual advances in the understanding of bacteria, it's components, etc. Let's not forget that actual hands-on genetic technology is fairly contemporary (as such, Lenski's experiment also is) and that bacteria analysis and study is a field that's been heavily researched lately in order to better understand bacterial pathogen agents, and their ability to adapt. It's one of those fields where better understanding can significantly help in fighting disease.

Yeah... the changes might be better suited to classifying bacteria now, but to say that we've observed a bacterium change into another life-form entirely is not even remotely close to anything we've seen in nature, lab or otherwise... Macroevolution would require such a change be confirmed... even while we continue to find evidence for microevolution... Evidence I've never denied has existed....

Because that type of change is understood to take a very, very long time, and we don't really have a way to accelerate the process. That's why in order to study such type of evolution we go to fossils and compare between different samples at different eras (within our ability to find and classify such fossils), and observe the mutations that have taken place. The type of change you're claiming we need to observe in a lab setting is comparable to a 'dolphin evolving in a horse', not a ' erectus evolving into a human'. And that's a completely artificial bar you've set up without any specific basis for it.

Don't forget that from the functional DNA standpoint, human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is almost 98.5% identical, and that the genetic difference between them is fairly do ented (including gene loss, protein evolution, etc). On the gene loss department, about 80 genes were lost since humans split from the common ancestor with chimpanzees, and 36 of those were for olfactory receptors alone (To put it in perspective, humans have roughly 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes and the latest estimates puts that gene loss occurring in a 6 million years span).

[LnGrrrR]

How disingenuous...

I'm not the one making the rules... Only the Creator [or alleged creator in your world view] is capable of setting the bounds for the natural laws HE himself created... If HE made them, HE very well can supercede them... in doing so, HIS very essence is (again, by definition) supernatural...

Go ahead and coin anything you want... you're still bound by the natural laws of our universe. Nothing changes that...

And Manny posited that there was a Creator for the Creator, and that this Super Creator was not bound even by supernatural laws. Not too hard to follow.

And technically speaking, if he can interact with nature, then some part of him isn't supernatural.

[Phenomanul]

Its his schtick. He loves to play the martyr while lobbing bombs while hiding behind God's supernatural skirt.

Schtick or not... nothing can change the fact that you're always an asinine jerk everyday of the week and twice on Sunday...

I respond -for-tat, in kind... you all aren't the most accommodatingly kind crowd, not by a long shot. That said, I can't recall 'lobbing bombs' at any poster who hadn't already thrown one at me... people like yourself, however, do so repeatedly (as if getting a rise out of others somehow validates your bitter existence).

For the most part my jabs tend to be subtle (and yes, sometimes overt as necessary), but those in your camp tend to throw vicious and spiteful crap in my direction all the time... Martyr??? Give me a break...

How's this for choice (a Mouse classic ):

Of all the people here, I know why someone like yourself fervently upholds the Evolutionary banner... I mean come on, you look at yourself in the mirror daily and effortlessly see the reflection of the "missing link"...