Reply With Quote
Again, no.
Information can, and is, added through mutation.
The only thing necessary for the first few self-replicating molecules is that they self-replicate, and that over millions of replications, some variability crept in.
Well you just admitted to having some type of pavlovian response to seeing any mention of the word God. Seems desperate to me.
Organisms actively adapt. This has been demonstrated by science repeatedly.
Again, no.
Information can, and is, added through mutation.
The only thing necessary for the first few self-replicating molecules is that they self-replicate, and that over millions of replications, some variability crept in.
So how the is the new information "added"?
A mutation possibility should only exist within the given amount of information. I can understand the DNA being rearranged, but not additional DNA being added. I don't think that is possible to add DNA.
EDIT
??? Not sure where I said anything of the sort. Sorry just don't see it.
I am still left wondering why you choose the adjective "desperate".
You and xellos appear to be using the word "adapt" differently, I would wager. Organism forms do respond to selective pressures, and yes, this has been demonstrated, and forms a core precept of the theory of evolution.
It is possible.
I will simplify a bit here, but if you do some reading on genetic mutations, you can find other methods of how information can be added to a genome.
Given:
DNA codes for proteins.
Proteins are then formed into all sorts of things.
For purposes of this example, I will limit the consideration of, say, enzymes.
STEP 1 An organism has genes for enzymes A, B, and C. Genome is: A, B, C,
Duplication errors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication ) will occasionally add an extra copy of one of those genes.
STEP 2 After mutation, organism now has two copies of the genes for C. Genome is A, B, C, C
This results in an organism that usually just produces twice as much of the C enzyme. Replication errors ( http://www.web-books.com/MoBio/Free/Ch7F3.htm ) will occasionally corrupt the "extra" copy. "C" then is corrupted and codes for a related, but entirely different and new enzyme "D"
STEP 3 After mutation, organism now has a new gene, "D". Genome is A, B, C, D
This is ONE method by which information can, and is, added to genomes. There are MANY others.
Easy enough to read on it. Here is a start.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...-mutation-1127
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-24-2015 at 04:47 PM. Reason: Being more respectful. Always a good thing to work for.
The "no new information" is a common misconception.
Indexed at talk origins as CB102, with more links to specific scientific studies showing, in much more detail than my VERY simplified example does, exactly how information is added through mutations and time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
mutation can add, remove, or reorder genes. this is known
So now that you admit your previous statement was wrong why don't you address the issue xellos raised instead of dismissing it? It's a valid topic. I'll be more specific, how does a simple organism "know" to actively adapt at a genetic level?
it doesn't. the mutations/variations occur randomly. the ones that aren't fortunate enough to gain a beneficial adaptation might die off. this is what we call extinction, and it happens quite a bit. well over 90% of all species that ever lived... are now extinct. the ones who are fortunate enough to gain a beneficial adaptation survive, and they pass that adaptation down. this is called natural selection.
This has been disproven by science. It's the high school biology class version of evolution that your sticking to even though it has been proven incorrect.
random variation is disproven by science?
(sighs heavily)
No, I am not admitting that my previous statement was wrong, I was pointing out that two people can use the same word and mean entirely different things, which seems to me to have been the case.
The answer to your/his question is, and was: They do not "know" anything. They just are.
Organisms that are better suited for their environment will reproduce more than those that aren't as well suited, in much the same manner as companies that can offer better/cheaper products than their compe ors grow and make more profit. This is simply natural selection and environmental feedback in operation. This process does NOT require any kind of sentience or direction, as is implicit in "know".
Mutations are pretty much random.
Please show anything that says "mutations occur randomly" has "been disproven by science". A link would be helpful.
Scientists Catch Evolution in the Act
COLUMN By LEE DYE Mar 22, 2011, 5:58 PM
Photo: Pam Soltis at the Florida Museum of Natural History
Scientists say they have caught "evolution in the act" in a series of experiments that open a new window into understanding how new species gradually morph into plants and animals that are distinctly different from their parents.
The experiments, conducted at the University of Florida in Gainesville, surprised the scientists by demonstrating that the development of a new species doesn't occur instantly, but instead is the product of succeeding generations that are able to alter their genetic blueprint as they gradually mature into a stable plant or animal.
The star of the show is a humble member of the daisy family, Tragopogon miscellus, better known as "goatsbeard," which began its long journey toward stability about 80 years -- and 40 generations -- ago.
"We can see for the first time what happens when a new species is formed," biologist Doug Soltis of the University of Florida said in a telephone interview. "We can see the process unfold, and it's still ongoing even as we speak. They (the plants) haven't figured all this out yet."
In Experiments, Scientists Say, New Species Had Greater Diversity
The research, published in the journal Current Biology, offers some startling insights. The new species first appeared in the Pacific Northwest sometime after 1920 when its parents produced a hybridized offspring with double the number of chromosomes. But unlike its parents, the genes were not rigidly programmed to perform certain functions. Instead, for many generations the genes acted sort of like free agents.
"Different genes are expressed at different times and in different places," Soltis said. So the new species had much greater diversity than would have been expected, creating a genetic blueprint as it went along, from one generation to the next, turning some genes on, and others off, and eliminating some entirely.
That, of course, gave goatsbeard an enormous advantage in adapting to new environmental challenges or opportunities.
"This is evolution at work," Soltis said. "You can see the fine tuning begin to take place."
Scientist: Flower Evolved 'Before Our Very Eyes'
Soltis began this research back in the 1980s when he and his wife, Pam, were living in Pullman, Washington.
Pam, who is now curator of evolutionary genetics at the Florida Museum of Natural History and a co-author of the study, and her biologist husband were intrigued by a daisy-like plant growing in their own backyard. It turned out that the flower was a hybridized product of two species introduced from Europe about 80 years ago.
Those same two species had hybridized in Europe earlier, but the resulting plant failed. In America, however, the new species was roundly successful, quickly surpassing its own parents and spreading rapidly.
The offspring had doubled its number of chromosomes, a normal process in species formation, but something else clearly was at work. Years later, the couple began experimenting with the plant in a lab they share on the Gainesville campus.
It was an extraordinary opportunity because the flower had evolved recently, "before our very eyes," as Soltis put it, and it had already passed through about 40 generations in 80 years, leaving a genetic history.
They were able to duplicate in the lab what they had already observed in nature, but in controlled conditions.
"The brand new individual that we made in our greenhouse seemed like it had a reset button," Soltis said.
It could reassign its genes, defying the widely-held belief that a genetic code is a fairly rigid blueprint. Instead, the researchers found "variations from plant to plant and which genes they are expressing and which ones they are eliminating. They are still trying to sort this out themselves."
"What we found was a surprise," said Richard Buggs of Queen Mary University in London, who worked on the study as a postdoctoral researcher at the Florida museum and lead author of the report. The "reset button ... could allow subsequent generations to experiment by switching off different genes."
Until now, it was not known that the evolutionary process took place over many generations.
Research Suggests Evolution Is Complicated, Fluid, Diverse
"We didn't know how quickly it happened," Soltis said. "Is this something that occurs almost instantly? It's not. You can see that after 40 or 50 generations. They are still making decisions. We didn't know that. We still don't know how long it takes for this to sort out and settle down and stabilize."
Evolution is frequently described as a "typo" in the genetic blueprint, but this research suggests it is much more complicated, and fluid, and diverse than the instantaneousness of a typo.
It's likely that this is the evolutionary path taken by all life forms, from plants to vertebrates, and it occurred in our own lineage many years ago. A new species slowly makes its way through life, allowing succeeding generations to reprogram genes to meet new challenges, thus emerging as a stable plant or animal after finding the most successful combination.
This new work is an intriguing window into evolution, but like all good science, it also raises a number of questions. What's the triggering mechanism? What causes a daisy to make a "decision" about how to deploy, or eliminate, a specific gene?
"That's a great question," Soltis said. "Right now we are just beginning to understand that they do that. What are they responding to when it happens? I don't really know that we have an answer to that."
So for now, they will keep looking through that new window. And all because of a daisy that attracted the attention of a couple of young scientists nearly three decades ago.
that whole thought process is only including those species which have properly adapted to survive. if you only look at those species, sure, it might look "planned" or "known." but does that mean 99.9% of species (which have gone extinct) were just genetically "stupid"?
i mean its easy to look at flowers and bees and their synergy and think "wow, they must have planned this, its so perfect."
and then you realize that 99.9% of all plant species that ever lived have gone extinct and that 99.9% of all insect species that ever lived have gone extinct. i guess those just weren't very good planners
I suspect (ok hope) he is going to state that natural selection is not random, which is definitely true. Different environments and biomes definitely select strongly for some traits.random variation is disproven by science?
But natural selection is far different than mutations which happen at the genetic level, and are very, very, very random. It can be said that mutations take certain forms, and those forms are not random, i.e. the types of mutations can be classified, as I have noted.
Just guessing at this point. Hopefully he will clarify a bit.
I just want you to address the question that xellos raised. You're trying to dismiss the question by claiming mutations are purely random while at the same time admitting they aren't random.
Here I'll give you another example. If you grow a culture of E. coli and then add lactose to the culture it will turn on genes that allow it to metabolize lactose, when there is no more lactose it will turn off those genes.
So the question is how does E. coli "know" to do that?
The answer is very simple, in fact it's right in front of your face in the article I posted.
Sorry, it doesn't really say what you think it does, Vizzini.
The article does, though, point out one of the more fascinating abililities of plants namely the ability of plants to take on multiple copies of genes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid ).
These plants didn't make any "decisions" in the conscious sense.
What you have is a doubling of genetic material, and a very random shuffling with successive generations as different genes are randomly shut on/off through sexual selection and pairing. Nothing really more complicated then that.
A bit of reading on how things can be randomized and categorized can be seen here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm
BTW: The original work of discovering dominant/recessive genes was some wonderful work of a monk who simply observed plants.
The article does NOT say that MUTATION is not random. As I noted in my other response, natural selection is the thing here that is given as not random.
Why won't you answer the question? The answer is even bolded for you. If an evolutionary biologist is willing to say it, why aren't you?
So evolution occurs through mutations which are random, natural selection is not random. Therefore you are saying natural selection is not evolution. Thanks.
His question is based on a misunderstanding of the theory, and you are further compounding the mistake.
Mutations are random.
Natural selection is not.
Do you understand the difference between the two?
Both are required for the process of evolution to occur. One is random. The other is not.
Not sure how I can make it any simpler. Genetic change is not the same as positive or negative feedback of that change.
Out of all the random mutations (i.e. rolls of the dice) one of them will be made ( two sixes) that will allow the organism that posses it to prosper.
Remove the lactose, and the gene "stands or falls" on whether it helps or hinders in other ways. (edit) Genes can have both positive and negative aspects. The lactose gene, for example, could cause an organism to be less heat tolerant for example. If the environment has a lot of lactose, the positive feedback of being able to use lactose outweighs the drawback of not being as heat tolerant. Remove the positive feedback, i.e. lactose, and the negative then outweighs the positive, and the gene frequency will decline. This is not a "choice" this is simply feedback. (end edit)
Respectfully:
You really, really should read a bit more on how natural selection works, it would help you get what I am trying to say here.
There lots of examples of things with negative feedbacks and positive feedbacks. (edit 2) Read up on sexual dimorphism and birds for example. (brightly colored males and dull colored females)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-24-2015 at 05:44 PM. Reason: trying to clarify a bit
You really are flailing about here. It's not a random mutation that allow E. coli to metabolize lactose when it is present.
Erg. Sorry. Added some edits that hopefully help.
I am trying to be fairly respectful here. "flailing" is not really returning the favor.
Again, you are making a very basic, and common, mistake. I have tried to point it out to you, you will have to do a bit more reading, if it matters to you to understand it correctly.
Don't take my word for it. Read a bit more. Please.
Just answer the question. It's a bolded quote from an evolutionary biologist. Why are you so unwilling to say it?
I'm not trying to be disrespectful but your unwilling to answer the simple question xellos raised. I given you examples and you keep changing your tune.
Let's see...
Mutations are random
Mutations aren't random
Natural selection isn't evolution
etc. etc.
That seems like flailing to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions