Evolution (quick) Masterclass

[Dr Adequate]

From what I have read on this, it is a loss of genetic information in both of those cases. A Wolf has the complete set of the genetic information whereas any domestic dog has only a partial set of the original information found in the wolf.

What a strange claim. You seem to be saying that any dog breed can be produced by removing genes from the wolf, yes? Take away the gene for not-being-a-dalmatian and you get a dalmatian? Remove the genes for not-being-an-Old-English-sheepdog and you get an Old English sheepdog?

I wonder what you have to remove from a monkey to get a human being ...

The same for cats. The main point of what I read is that the wolf, or prototype cat, has more information in its DNA than any of the types that come from it. Not only different information but more information. One of the books I read on this was called One Blood. I can’t remember off the top of my head what the others were. I would have to look them up if anyone is interested.

Were any of your sources written by geneticists?

Also the resistant bacteria example. Again I have read that it is the bacteria’s loss, through mutation, of an ability to manufacture an enzyme, that an antibacterial drug causes the bacteria to make. The enzyme, when made, is actually a poison to the bacteria and kills it.

Why would a bacterium have a gene to produce an enzyme fatal to it in the first place?

There is no gain of genetic information in the bacteria, only a loss of information and the ability to produce the enzyme. I can’t remember the exact material I read this in. Again I could look it up if anyone is interested.

Please. Try to find a source who is actually a geneticist or a microbiologist or something.

You do know that there's more than one sort of antibiotic, don't you? So your hypothesis requires, again, that the original strain of bacteria should have a gene-for-being-killed-by-penecillin, a gene-for-being-killed-by-streptomycin, a gene-for-being-killed-by-gentamicin, a gene-for-being-killed-by-chloramphenical ... et cetera. Indeed, bacteria do in the end manage to overcome anything we throw at them in this line ... so just how much of their genetic code must be devoted to genes-for-being-killed-by-things?

Here are some more things bacteria can evolve to do :

"Lin’s team has developed several strains of bacteria that can use coal as a nutrient and adsorb or degrade contaminants. They started with natural strains already adapted to extreme conditions, such as the presence of metals or high salinity, then gradually altered the nutrient mix and contaminant levels and selected the most hardy bugs (see details).

In laboratory tests, various strains of these microbes have been shown to absorb contaminant metals, degrade dissolved organics, and break down coal in a way that would release trapped methane. "

So, under your "information loss" hypothesis, the original bacteria must have had a gene-for-not-digesting-coal, a gene-for-not-degrading-dissolved-organics, and a gene-for-not-absorbing-contaminent-metals.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ah, here's what an actual zoologist says about dogs.

A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from different locations around the world has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites.

Underlining mine.

 

[LotusMegami]

The differences between dogs and wolves involved a *change* in genes. This could mean a gain, a loss, or a change.

If it was a loss, the gene was not a gene-for-not-being-cuddly-and-affectionate. The genetic code is a recipe, not a blueprint.

For another example, if a baby is born deaf, that does not mean there is a "deafness gene." It means there are many genes involved in proper ear growth, and if something goes wrong, they don't work.

 

[drkitten]

Do you have an example of when mutation has added new benificial information to an organism

 

[drkitten]

Do you have an example of when mutation has added new benificial information to an organism’s DNA? Any article or journal on the exact subject of mutation creating new information would be very interesting to me.

From what I can see on mutation, it is a loss of information or negative change to an organism's DNA.

A very common form of mutation is a so-called 'duplication event,' where a gene is copied twice into the target genome. This specifically creates new information, since there are two independent functional copies of the gene, and they can be independently modified to serve two different functions.

Humans owe their color vision to such a gene duplication. Most mammals don't have good color vision, especially in comparison to reptiles and birds. Primates, specifically Old World Monkeys, apes, and a few groups of New World monkeys, are a notable exception. Biochemically, this has to do with the cones in the retina of the eye. A "typical" mammal only has the genes for making two kinds of cones and sees colors only about as well as a color-blind person. Humans in general have genes for making three kinds of cones, and therefore see a much wider variety of colors. If you look at the genes for 'red' and 'green' cones, our color vision comes as a result of a duplication event several million years ago, and the two types of cones have drifted apart as a
result of evolutionary pressure.

There are several other examples of this kind of gene duplication that are just as obvious -- we have something like six different genes for slightly different forms of hemoglobin, including a very important one called 'fetal hemoglobin' that binds more tightly to oxygen than does normal adult hemoglobin. This is how oxygen gets transferred from a mother's body to that of her fetus; without this duplication event, live birth would be impossible.

Duplication events themselves are rather common -- and they're usually not that harmful of a mutation, so they tend to persist. But they're a good way where "new information" can be introduced into a genome. Once you have two copies of a gene, you can change one while preserving the functionality of the other, essentially allowing a gene to be coopted to a new function.

I know there is a lot more to this thread but this one subject interests me a great deal.

Richard Dawkins has a good, and accessible, discussion of these in The Ancestors Tale.

 

[Christian Dude]

Thanks guys for all the great stuff to read; and I will read it.

I have a couple questions though. Why are scientist’s, who believe in creation, doctorates and masters degrees less valid than ones who believe in evolution so that you don’t have time to read their stuff? Why is Creationist literature not worth reading but Evolutionist literature is? They all look at the same facts and come up with different answers. That is very interesting reading to me on both sides.

Dr Adequate I do believe that one of the books I read with discussions on bacteria, and their loss of an ability to produce an enzyme, was written by a geneticist. If it was not, I will verify it in this thread as well.

I have to leave to go to the airport. I will look up the books and sources I have read, and post them in this thread for anyone who is interested when I get back and can dig them out of my library. For all you guys in cold weather states, I’ll be in sunny warm Orlando till Sunday. See you guys later.

-Dude

 

[drkitten]

I have a couple questions though. Why are scientist’s, who believe in creation, doctorates and masters degrees less valid than ones who believe in evolution so that you don’t have time to read their stuff? Why is Creationist literature not worth reading but Evolutionist literature is? They all look at the same facts and come up with different answers. That is very interesting reading to me on both sides.

It's largely a question of comparative expertise and weight of opinion.

"Scientists" are a large and very diverse group, and they tend to specialize. In particular, the opinion of a biologist on a question of nuclear physics should carry no more weight than the opinion of any comparably educated person -- a priest, a lawyer, a historian. Most of the leading lights among "scientists who believe in creation" are speaking well outside of their area of expertise -- William Dembski, for example, is a mathematician, and not an especially good one. Probably the best of the creationist scientists is Michael Behe -- but he's a biochemist, not a biologist, and the limitations of his expertise were well-displayed to the universe at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. You shouldn't believe that someone knows what they're talking about just because they have a Ph.D. Some Ph.D.'s are simply incompenent, and more are talking outside of their areas of expertise. The key question is not credentials, but evidence and logic.

There's also simply the problem of representativeness. There is a very large and active creationist publishing industry (and what seems to be an unfillable demand for creationist writing), so the extremely few creationist scientists get much more than their "fair share" of press and are held to a much lower standard of publishing. Basically, there's much more garbage published in the name of "creationism."

The claim that mutations can only lose information is a good example. In order to actually justify this, you would need to be able to define exactly what you mean by "lose information"; Dembski (I believe)has tried it, but his formalisms simply don't work. (In particular, there is a well-understood subdiscipline in mathematics called "information theory," but Dembski doesn't use its results, largely because it's easily provable that mutations almost always increase information under that framework.) But assuming that you come up with a meaningful framework and treatment of "information," you would then need to explain why gene duplications don't increase information. This is the sort of question that any decent reader -- or peer reviewer -- would catch and flag in the manuscript before publication. That's why good journal articles are reviewed; to keep garbage out.

However (and again the Dover case is a good illustration), creationist publications are typically not reviewed in this manner before publication.

 

[scotth]

Thanks guys for all the great stuff to read; and I will read it.

I have a couple questions though. Why are scientist’s, who believe in creation, doctorates and masters degrees less valid than ones who believe in evolution so that you don’t have time to read their stuff? Why is Creationist literature not worth reading but Evolutionist literature is? They all look at the same facts and come up with different answers. That is very interesting reading to me on both sides.

-Dude

This is probably one of the best questions I have seen asked in a while. I'm sorry that my answer probably won't be as concise as the question.

There are rules by which science is generally conducted. These rules span from taking measurements, to formulating ideas, and to reporting the results. These rules are called the scientific method. All of these rules were created for one and the same reason. Pay attention now, because this is the part that loses most of the people who get lost. The reason why science has all these stodgy rules is that we (humans) have finally realized that we are easily fooled and misled, especially by ourselves. These rules are all geared to prevent, uncover, and correct all of these (often self) deceptions.

There are lists of errors in argument (falacies they're called) that have been discovered and recorded. If you learn to recognize common errors in argument, you are much less likely to make them yourself, and will notice when they are made by others. There are tons of ways to prevent bias from creaping into recorded data, tons of ways. I could go on and on for pages here. But, it all boils down to the fact that the FIRST thing you need to learn, to do science well, is to understand that humans make mistakes and are easily fooled. Then you fill your tool box with ways and ways to help avoid making mistakes and being fooled.

Once you have filled your toolbox of skeptical skills, you'll notice that the world starts looking different to you. You see the 'common people' around you making all kinds of goofy mistakes and errors (or being defrauded and lied to) that could easily be prevented if they took the time to learn the skills you've just acquired. "AAARRRGGGGHHHH!" you say to them, and try to point out their folly. They are often un-interested in your help, get used to it.

You've learned all this great stuff and then you pick a piece of creationist literature. Immediately, you notice that nearly every rule you've learned to keep errors under control are being broken EVERYWHERE. Ack, it is attrocious. That is the difference.

It is hard to make plain the difference to someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method, or especially the reason it was developed. With that background, the difference will be very appearent.

 

[scotth]

Nice job Dr Kitten.

Your last bit contains some great examples of my point.

Edited for clarity

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have a couple questions though. Why are scientist’s, who believe in creation, doctorates and masters degrees less valid than ones who believe in evolution so that you don’t have time to read their stuff?

That's rubbish. I have read an enormous amount of creationist literature. I don't think there's a single person contributing to this thread who's pro-evolution who hasn't heard this particular rubbish about mutations a dozen times before.

We know the creationist arguments. Let me help you out ... the second law of thermodynamics (oh, please do that one, it always makes me laugh) ... if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys ... evolution can't explain irreducible complexity ... evolution can't explain altruism ... evolution can't explain the eye ... there are gaps in the fossil record ... there are no intermediate forms ...

I have taken the time to learn every major creationist argument, look it up, and find out that it's rubbish. Meanwhile, you still need us to take you through the ABC of real biology.

Very little creationist writing is written by creationist scientists, because there hardly are any creationist scientists.

And none of it is in the scientific literature.

You see how quickly we found references for you? Take your time ... and find me one place in any journal of genetics which says that mutations only cause information loss.

It's not there. It's only in tatty little creationist pamphlets. 'Cos this statement is known to be false by geneticists.

Why is Creationist literature not worth reading but Evolutionist literature is?

Because science is a matter of observation and experiment, not of stringing words together.

If someone who has never done any research into genetics tells me that mutations only cause information loss, whereas geneticists tell me different, then I know who to believe.

They all look at the same facts and come up with different answers.

But this is clearly not true. Geneticists look at the fact that mutations can create information, which is what geneticists say in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You look at the unreal non-fact that mutations cannot increase information, which is what non-geneticists say in propaganda pamphlets. It is not our conclusions that are different. It's what we think are facts. I get my facts about science from scientists, who get the facts about science from nature. You do not.

You tell me that dogs have only lost genes. A zoologist looks at the genes of dogs and wolves and tells me that some genes have been gained by dogs.

He actually looked at the DNA.

This makes his views, which are based on observation, more valid than yours, which are not.

Dr Adequate I do believe that one of the books I read with discussions on bacteria, and their loss of an ability to produce an enzyme, was written by a geneticist.

Remember, to support your thesis, you need to prove that every adaptive mutation is a loss of information. Finding this to be true in one exceptional case will do nothing about the dogs ... or the homeoboxes ... or color vision in humans ... or the "nylon-eating" bugs ...

Or the simple fact that a duplication of any gene followed by a point mutation in one of those genes produces an "increase of information" however you choose to measure "information".

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dembski (I believe)has tried it, but his formalisms simply don't work. (In particular, there is a well-understood subdiscipline in mathematics called "information theory," but Dembski doesn't use its results, largely because it's easily provable that mutations almost always increase information under that framework.)

Yes. His idea of complexity is the opposite of Kolmogorov complexity. This means that by Dembski's definition ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare'' is less complex than a book the same length consisting entirely of the letter A repeated.

I did a bit of a hatchet job on him for the SkepticWiki :

[swiki]William Dembski[/swiki]

And ChristianDude complains that I haven't found time to read these people.

Read him, refuted him, laughed at him.

Someone should do a similar article on Michael Behe.

* looks pointedly at dr kitten *

 

[strathmeyer]

dog + dog= a dog
cat + cat =a cat
monkey + monkey= still a monkey

Kathy, I'm confused; when two dogs have a puppy, is the puppy exactly the same as both parents?

 

[drkitten]

Someone should do a similar article on Michael Behe.

* looks pointedly at dr kitten *

It's on the list. RIght after I write up all of statistical theory for the SkepticWiki and finish the three books I've committed to publishing.

And possibly after I've invented Warp Drive.

 

[wolfgirl]

I don't know about how mutation may or may not occur.

All I know is that ape + ape does not= human! Where does the more data come from? Even Darwin himself could not answer this question!

dog + dog= a dog
cat + cat =a cat
monkey + monkey= still a monkey

If you don't know about how mutations occur, then you don't grasp the most basic and necessary tenets of the process of evolution. Because it is in the mutations that evolution occurs.

Evolution, or at least the process of natural selection that leads to evolution, has been proven to occur, by the way. Now you may argue about whether those changes can ever lead to differentiation of species, but you can't really argue (and be taken seriously) that natural selection doesn't occur at all. Schools of fish, for example, that become separated by flooding and then recession of the floodwater have been seen to follow separate evolutionary paths and become quite different through the process of natural selection. Groups of birds that become separated from their flocks will evolve somewhat differently from the original flock. And this is in a relatively short period of time. Imagine what could happen in millions and millions of years (can you even comprehend how long that is?).

 

[Dogdoctor]

. Why are scientist’s, who believe in creation, doctorates and masters degrees less valid than ones who believe in evolution so that you don’t have time to read their stuff? Why is Creationist literature not worth reading but Evolutionist literature is? They all look at the same facts and come up with different answers. That is very interesting reading to me on both sides.

-Dude

I am sorry for my comment if it seems that I was not interested in the subject matter. I am a very busy man. scotth goes into more detail than I will but basically once you get used to looking at logical fact based arguments those such as One Blood or the Black Box (which I did read) or whatever become an incredible boring and often upsetting task to read since the thought processes they demonstrate are obviously not concerned with scientific knowledge (except as it supports their position). They pick and chose what to mention and deride those who disagree. Breifly reading through the site I found it to be a bunch of speculation without presenting data to back it up. What is the Curse? I may just have to go read about that but then it sounds like a totally unscientific concept in which case once I find out then I will likely not bother reading anymore.

 

[Tricky]

Groups of birds that become separated from their flocks will evolve somewhat differently from the original flock. And this is in a relatively short period of time. Imagine what could happen in millions and millions of years (can you even comprehend how long that is?).

Interesting that you should use this as an example, because I was noting just the other day a possible speciation in action.

Here in the Houston area, we have a lot of Mexican Black-bellied whistling ducks.

Because I am an amateur birdwatcher, I see a lot of these handsome birds on the natural ponds and streams near my house. Last year though, a whole flock of them moved in to the pond in the office park where I work. The reason I find this odd is because the ones in the wild ponds are very skittish about humans, and you can't get very close to them. The ones in the pond by my office are almost fearless around humans, allowing you to walk within a couple of feet of them.

I know they are nesting near their respective ponds (I see ducklings every now and then) so it occurred to me that their populations do not interbreed very much. I know that speciation requires reproductive isolation, but that isolation need not be physical. It can be behavioral as well. So I wonder if I'm seeing the beginning of a new species of domesticated ducks.

(BTW, that's a cute pair of puppies you have, but I still prefer the old avatar.)

 

[strathmeyer]

I have a couple questions though. Why are scientist’s, who believe in creation, doctorates and masters degrees less valid than ones who believe in evolution so that you don’t have time to read their stuff? Why is Creationist literature not worth reading but Evolutionist literature is? They all look at the same facts and come up with different answers. That is very interesting reading to me on both sides.

Because we can't read everything on the planet, so we have to make choices about what we read. You can look at facts and come up with answers all you want, but if you want people to read something you write, those answers need to make sense.

 

[supercorgi]

And this is in a relatively short period of time. Imagine what could happen in millions and millions of years (can you even comprehend how long that is?).

Pssst, they don't think the world is that old so they'll never get the concept.

 

[gnome]

They all look at the same facts and come up with different answers. That is very interesting reading to me on both sides.

I'm not sure they are all looking at the same facts. Creationists have a history of ignoring facts that don't fit their hypothesis, in favor of compiling favorable information that sounds convincing to someone that hasn't heard the rest of the story. Scientists (if they're doing their job properly) will abandon the hypothesis in the face of facts... even revisiting long-held theories... before ignoring facts.

If you feel otherwise, I'd love to hear which facts you think Evolutionists are ignoring.

 

[drkitten]

Let's play nicely here, people. If this is supposed to be a masterclass on evolution, attacking creationism without immediately providing supporting evidence is not going to be helpful. Just telling Christian Dude that "creationists suck" will probably not be convincing to him or to anyone else reading this thread.