Forums | MacLife

Just to throw a little more water on the "no new information" fire, see:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer … t=Citation

( think that the actual article, in PDF form, is free)

Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment
Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF
Mol Biol Evol. 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42

When microbes evolve in a continuous, nutrient-limited environment, natural selection can be predicted to favor genetic changes that give cells greater access to limiting substrate. We analyzed a population of baker's yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition. These changes are correlated with increased levels of mRNA hybridizing to probe generated from the hexose transport locus HXT6. Further analysis of the evolved strain reveals the existence of multiple tandem duplications involving two highly similar, high-affinity hexose transport loci, HXT6 and HXT7. Selection appears to have favored changes that result in the formation of more than three chimeric genes derived from the upstream promoter of the HXT7 gene and the coding sequence of HXT6. We propose a genetic mechanism to account for these changes and speculate as to their adaptive significance in the context of gene duplication as a common response of microorganisms to nutrient limitation.

In other words, these reasearchers let yeast grow on a poor medium for 450 generations (not that long for yeast) and noticed that the new population of yeast had acquired metabolic characteristics that allowed it to fare pretty well in a tough environment.

When they went looking around in the genome of the yeast, they found that there had been gene duplications and other changes that account for the new abilities.

So much for there being no way for new information to be added which increases functionality.

Next argument?

Or how about the fact that we fall apart after breeding age.. That seems to speak tons about evolution, as for the species to survive, they only have to last into their 30s, and everybody starts to fall apart after that age (some faster than others).

Chickenhawk wrote:

Or how about the fact that we fall apart after breeding age.. That seems to speak tons about evolution, as for the species to survive, they only have to last into their 30s, and everybody starts to fall apart after that age (some faster than others).

Maybe we don't fall apart after a breeding age, but rather, breeding capabilities are one of the first things to go when we do fall apart.

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I won't pretend to have read the past few pages, but does ID explain why I have an appendix?  I don't use it!  Why would I have it?  Or (I'm told) a rudimentary tailbone?

Te appendix aids in the immune system, there are ligaments that attach to your tailbone.
Both of them serve important functions.

You can survive without the appendix, we have redundancy designed into us for that - though other parts of your body do have to work harder.

I don't think you would do very well without a tail bone, if you lost it through mutation you probably would not contribute to the gene pool.

I was pretty sure the appendix is there to digest cellulose, a holdover from our herbivore days. In the current stage of human evolution, it is too attrophied (can't think of a better word) to really aid our digestion. In herbivores, the appendix is much more devolped.

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Just to throw a little more water on the "no new information" fire, see:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer … t=Citation

( think that the actual article, in PDF form, is free)

Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment
Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF
Mol Biol Evol. 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42

I'll address this when I get home - I suspect I know exactly what this is, and it is not new information.

Remember, a defective gene can be beneficial to a species under certain circumstances - but such a gene is still a loss or no change in information, not new information to do new things - like the general theory of evolution requires.

It is NOT a defective gene.  It is an example of in-lab, observed production of new genes that have new functionality, related to "enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition."

The other review paper that I linked earlier ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer … t=Abstract ) gives the mechanism of the duplication and subsequent mutation and selection for new function.  The paper that you are mentioning give the effect.  And the effect is a NEW trait (or traits, actually), not a loss of an old one.

Besides which, that previous monkey paper that I cited is really making a monkey out of your arguments on this issue as well.  That is, evolution of a new gene (following duplication) with new functionality that allows a species to move into a new ecological niche.  NOT a loss of a trait, but rather a gain of a new one.

You can argue all you like, but the fact is, there is a plethora of examples of duplication of genes or portions of genes resulting in NEW functionality.  If I felt like it, I could dig up papers left, right and center.  However, to save me the time, why don't you look around the reference section of the review paper that I have re-cited in this post.

So basically, from yeast to monkeys, your "no new information" argument is looking rather shabby.

Last edited by Hank Rearden (2005-08-30 12:57 pm)

Hank Rearden wrote:

It is NOT a defective gene.

Half the game is using words that imply intent by artificially applying some sort of standard method/configuation.

3. Eyebrows. Though you look damn silly if you burn them off.

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

3. Eyebrows. Though you look damn silly if you burn them off.

With those, some might argue that they function to keep sweat from dripping into your eyes (note that non-bipedal animals wouldn't need such).  And, also, they may act to reduce glare, much like the cheek smudges worn by football and baseball players.

I would argue that the minimal hair that we retain on our bodies has one function or another.  And, from an hypothesis-suggestion-perspective, I would say that one could look through the human genome for genes relating to hair patterns during development and compare them to, say, chimps or gorillas.

In humans you should find genes or regulatory elements that retain or promote our few features.  Those elements might be either unchanged or enhanced compared to the related groups.  Also in humans, you should find remants of other genes or regulatory elements that are nonfunctional but mirror similar loci in the other apes.

See, an evolution-driven, testable hypothesis!  In fact, you could do all of the testing with online, public domain genomic databases with a little bit of confirmatory experimentation in the lab.  I'm not sure if anyone's done that sort of thing yet, but it would make a darn good project if it hasn't been done.

Note the extreme power of evolutionary hypotheses?  Again, let's see ID do that!

Resedit.

Please define information.

Thanks.

Also, why do I grow a beard?  I don't like shaving so often.

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Resedit.

Please define information.

Thanks.

DNA contains very specific sequences, much like grammar in a book.
These sequences give instructions that tell the cell containing the DNA how to do various things, including instructions on physical (and other) characteristics that make a life form what it is.

Here is more information on it:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … ncing.html

Define "tell". AFAIK, DNA can't speak, or otherwise communicate any more than sand or milk can.

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Resedit.

Please define information.

Thanks.

DNA contains very specific sequences, much like grammar in a book.
These sequences give instructions that tell the cell containing the DNA how to do various things, including instructions on physical (and other) characteristics that make a life form what it is.

Here is more information on it:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … ncing.html

Define "tell". AFAIK, DNA can't speak, or otherwise communicate any more than sand or milk can.

Don't be an idiot.

resedit wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

DNA contains very specific sequences, much like grammar in a book.
These sequences give instructions that tell the cell containing the DNA how to do various things, including instructions on physical (and other) characteristics that make a life form what it is.

Here is more information on it:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … ncing.html

Define "tell". AFAIK, DNA can't speak, or otherwise communicate any more than sand or milk can.

Don't be an idiot.

Sorry. I should have said gasoline or orange juice.