• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution (quick) Masterclass

Don't forget Minsky's Theorem of Evolution:
The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
Click to expand...

~~ Paul
 
ned flandas said:
OK, here's what I understand by evolution in a nutshell.

If anything exists now, it means that it works the best in its environment for this moment in time.

Anything that has existed in the past buut does not exist today has failed.
Click to expand...
Hmm ...

If anything exists now, that means that all its ancestors successfully reproduced.

"Best in its environment" is misleading. For example, the Serengeti is an environment --- so which is "best", an elephant, a lion, or a blade of grass?

On the other hand, we can make a comparison within a species: those members of it best equipped, by virtue of their genes, to reproduce those genes, are better in a Darwinian sense than those less well-equipped, in that they will be favoured by natural selection.

The other problem with your account is that it sketches the mechanism by which information is culled from the gene pool, but you don't mention the process (mutation) by which new information is added to the gene pool. Natural selection on its own, or, come to that, mutation on its own, would not explain evolution.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Hmm ...

If anything exists now, that means that all its ancestors successfully reproduced.

"Best in its environment" is misleading. For example, the Serengeti is an environment --- so which is "best", an elephant, a lion, or a blade of grass?

On the other hand, we can make a comparison within a species: those members of it best equipped, by virtue of their genes, to reproduce those genes, are better in a Darwinian sense than those less well-equipped, in that they will be favoured by natural selection.

The other problem with your account is that it sketches the mechanism by which information is culled from the gene pool, but you don't mention the process (mutation) by which new information is added to the gene pool. Natural selection on its own, or, come to that, mutation on its own, would not explain evolution.
Click to expand...

Dr Adequate,

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.

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

Thanks,
Dude
 
Last edited:
ned flandas said:
How does a mutation occur?
Click to expand...
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
 
ned flandas said:
How does a mutation occur?
Click to expand...
A mutation is when the process of copying genetic material goes wrong, so that the copy is not the same as the original.

Note that this is only of interest from an evolutionary standpoint if it's a germ line mutation, that is, one which affects sperm, ova, pollen, or what-have-you and so will be present in every cell of the offspring.
 
kurious_kathy said:
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
Click to expand...

Kathy, do you know what "ring species" are?
(http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Ring_species.asp)
Understanding the concept will help you to understand why "cat+cat" repeated enough times will not always "=cat".
Species are fuzzy groupings of organisms, not fixed boundaries, it's just that some of the links between different "species" aren't around anymore to complete the "ring".
 
Christian Dude said:
Dr Adequate,

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.

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

Thanks,
Dude
Click to expand...

How about:

"Purification and Characterization of 6-Aminohexanoic-Acid-Oligomer Hydrolase of Flavobacterium sp. K172," Kinoshita, et. al., Eur. J. Biochem. 116, 547-551 (1981), FEBS 1981.

LLH
 
Christian Dude said:
Dr Adequate,

Do you have an example of when mutation has added new benificial information to an organism’s DNA?
Click to expand...
Lots. Specifically all those that are not neutral and have survived, for example the mutation causing larger brain size in humans, or penecillin resistance in bacteria, or the fancy beaks on Darwin's finches, or ...

Well, there's no need to belabor the point.

If you want an example where we can see what's going on in genetic terms, perhaps you should take a look at homeobox evolution.

From what I can see on mutation, it is a loss of information or negative change to an organism's DNA.
Click to expand...
Could I remind you that this is not what geneticists say? "As far as I can see..." you write, but as you are not involved in any way in genetics, you can't see very far at all.

A mutation may either add or remove information from the DNA of the organism it affects. This is always an addition of information to the gene pool (unless by some coincidence that mutation has already taken place).

It is easy to show that for small mutations, the chances of it being useful or harmful are equal (to be precise, as the size of the mutation tends to zero, the chances tend to equality).

You may find this article useful:

[swiki]Mutation[/swiki]
 
Last edited:
Christian Dude said:
Dr Adequate,

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.

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

Thanks,
Dude
Click to expand...
Mutations occur over long periods of time so studying what occurs over long periods of time is difficult but in theory any beneficial trait may have come about because of mutation. The best case for a beneficial mutation is the English peppered moth. Here is a link with lots of info for you to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
 
Thanks Dr Adequate, LordoftheLeftHand and Dogdoctor for the references to read. I will read up on them while I am traveling this week.

Just some quick thoughts of some of the things mentioned. Wolf to dog and wild cat to domestic cat. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Any how, thanks for the references to read, it will give me something to read in the hotel room at night.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Not really.

I far prefer the good ol' bacteria cultured in an increasingly toxic medium. Very simple, very replicable.
Click to expand...
I find artificially created evolution (evolution by human intervention) not as meaningful as naturally occurring evolution.
 
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.
Click to expand...
If the bacteria survive, then this statement is wrong.

One Blood is Creationist literature. I've never read it, so I don't know what arguments it makes.

Also, please explain what this "loss of information" means, and why dogs and cats don't instantly die after thousands of generations, but according to the way you say mutations work, bacteria supposedly do after a just a few.
 
kurious_kathy said:
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
Click to expand...

Kathy... this argument is based on an insufficient understanding of the theory of evolution. You don't have to agree with something to study it. If you are unwilling to cultivate a better understanding of that which you criticize, you are only trolling, and not at all interested in establishing who has the more reliable claim. Sorry! :con2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom