2
   

Programming of Life

 
 
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 05:38 am




Our entire living world is driven by information and by an information code (RNA/DNA) which is essentially a programming language like C++ or Java. What is rapidly turning out to be the case, is that every cell of every living thing's body contains all of the basic components of a modern computer system.
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 11:06 am
@gungasnake,
how does your worldview spin it?

Is this another video about how IMPOSSIBLE it is for evolution to occur?. Remember, each event in a developmental chain is dependent upon the previous, so its really not some impossible exponential number that you guys ARE SO enamored of.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 12:14 pm
@farmerman,
The Miller/Uray experiment produced amino acids, which we also find on meteorites and asteroids. Nobody has ever produced an instance of a protein forming naturally and there is no plausible scenario for that to happen.

I don't buy the use of probability for that sort of thing myself, in my view if something has never happened and nobody has ever come up with a plausible theory as to how it could ever happen, the thing is basically impossible.

In the case of a coelurosaur evolving into a flying bird, I believe you could make a more plausible case for probability theory being useful.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 08:17 am
@gungasnake,
Miller and Urey qere at the beginnings of milligram/litre level analyses. They had NO idea what they found fully. The fact that we see the formation of dextro rottory amino acides and nuclides is more interesting than is the mere presence of them. We see several star clusters emitting spectra for GTAC/U (individual nuclides , not all at once). Gunga, dont assume that DNA was a prerequisite for earliest life.
I know how you like to twist facts like a turitelli, but try to keep your "facts" assembled correctly.

Quote:
I don't buy the use of probability for that sort of thing myself, in my view if something has never happened and nobody has ever come up with a plausible theory as to how it could ever happen
Thats why youre not in the sciences except as a chat room denier.

Remember, science requires an open mind, but not so open that your brains spill out on the floor.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 03:54 am
@farmerman,
E O Wilson has stated in his bookThe Diversity of Life, that there are, based upon all the living species known and the approximate number of nucleotide sites, approximately 5.5 X 10^17 separate nucleotides in the world. Not an imposing number of sites upon which speciation and evolution can be practiced.

Some of those ridiculously high numbers produced by the Creation pushers are just junque and merely demonstrate that, if you let anyone put on a lab cot, they can spout garbage as well as they can facts.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 07:17 am
@farmerman,
Granted that thing is long but if you were to watch the whole thing you'd learn something. Living cells contain every necessary part to a modern computer and computer network beginning with actionable information, meaning information which causes activity according to the information content.

Information codes like XML or RNA/DNA do not just sort of happen. I keep getting back to fruit flies...

Fruit flies breed new generations every other day so that running any sort of a decades-long experiment with fruit flies will involve more generations of them than there have ever been of anything even remotely resembling humans on our planet. Those flies were subjected to everything in the world known to cause mutations and the mutants were recombined every possible way; all they ever got were sterile freaks, and fruit flies. Several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at that point in time including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.

The failure was due to the fact that our entire living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in the picture was that for a fruit fly. When the DNA/RNA information scheme was discovered, even if the fruit fly thing had never happened, evolution should have been discarded on the spot. But GIVEN the fact of the fruit fly experiments, somebody HAD to have thought to himself "Hey, THAT'S THE REASON THE FRUIT FLY EXPERIMENTS FAILED!!!!!!"

In other words, there is no way in the world anybody should be believing in evolution 40 years after the discovery of DNA and, again, that's just one overwhelming disproof amongst a number of such. No legitimate science theory would ever survive such a history.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 08:25 am
@gungasnake,
are you speaking of the fruit fly experiment of 1960"s?. There have been several hundred fruit fly experiments that have been conducted since the 1980's (when the coding sequences and the basic language of the genome was first being understood). ALL recent fruit fly experiments tht hve looked at the nature of evolution and the genome have NOT refuted ANYTHIG of Darwin.

I know you only read that " YEC SCIENCE" crap, but as I said before, dont let your brains spill out.

The information is more like a product bar code. (In which the line components arent binary but hexadecimal). You seem to miss the important stuff when you read your Creationist stuff. The genome is showing us more and more that it preserves the old information in a gene much more than it creates new information. Thats why the genome of a lamprey is so much longer than that of a human yet there are many "Base sequences " in both that are common.

Creationist tripe falls in the gutter when science presents evidence .

Quote:
In other words, there is no way in the world anybody should be believing in evolution 40 years after the discovery of DNA and, again, that's just one overwhelming disproof amongst a number of such. No legitimate science theory would ever survive such a history


You dont even know when DNA was first synthesized,nor when its association with genetics occured , are you?? Therefore I assume you dont have any knowledge of the initial breakthrough work that had preceeded Watson , Crick (nd Franklin)..
Might I suggest you research a bit about the findings of Freiderich Meischer and the later work of Albrecht Kossel, Thomas Hunt Morgan, (and what he found about drosophila),Ronald Fischer, Fyodor Dobzhansky,Phoebus Levene, (who was ostracized by the Soviets for his Bourgeois views of "Genetical tripe"). All WAton and Crick did was to let us know that this was a double helix crystal structure. The real work of the findings of the workings of the genome came later .

BTW,Levenes workmade it hard to justify anything Creationist at all.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 08:50 am
@farmerman,
Part of gungas problems is that hes unable to visualize things in 4 dimensions. Consider the old Barbara Dodd fruit fly experiments that occured over several years. She isolated several populations of drosophila and had a control "Mixed population" where, in her isolated populations, she fed one group maltose based foods and another, she fed starch bsed foods. After several hundred generations she did the genetics and cmpared the two populations. The maltose pop contained some neer morphological features as well as a preference and a "gut" that required only malt sugar foods.
NOW, This was NPOT evo;ution. It showed that variability could be inserted into a genome by geographic isolation (one of the mechanisms for evolution). IF, each popultion (maltose, starch, nd mixed, were placed in new environments, yet another adaptation and variation could be in place. Given enough timesidering that she bred sevveral hundred generations in less than 5 years, we should be seeing derived species. Such has been happening in the fich experiments in the field that are beimg conducted through Princeton U on the Galapogos islands.

Gungas speeches about "failed fruit fly" expperiments are sort of a lie. The early experiments he talks about were pitiful Lamarkian studies that houldnt even have been funded knowing what we know today. BUT gunga does dwell in the past to make his points (Or elde he likes to believe that a cartoonist knows more about Nenaderthals than do the scientsist at MAx Planck Institute.
raprap
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 09:19 am
@gungasnake,
Do Do Doing the Ganjasnake boogie

Now do it in a circle the Ganjasnake way by using Goldschmidts pre Watson and Cricks conclusion using the DNA structure argument and repeat ad infinitum.

Oh BTW as selective cutting and pasting is a favorite Ganla tactic I thought I'd do the same rebutting by presenting a rebuttal to the old and tired Fruitie Fly Argument.

But not being being Ganja I thought I'd put the link first.

Funny Pathlights

Quote:
The page on pathlights.com entitled "Fruit Flies Speak Up" purports to show that "evolution is a fake" by examining experiments with the popular lab animal, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Since I did my Ph.D. on evolution in Drosophila melanogaster and its close relatives, I was surprised to hear this species held up as proof that "evolution is a fake." In any case, the authors of the "Fruit Flies Speak Up" page (which is supposedly an excerpt from the book Mutations available through pathlights.com) have made 14 major claims on this page, and have used quotations (some from creationists, some from evolutionary biologists) to bolster their claim that fruit fly experiments prove that "evolution is a fake." I will go through each of the 14 claims in turn. If the pathlights page presented a quote to supposedly bolster their claim, then I have reprinted that quote here, followed by my response to the claim. Jason Hodin Seattle, WA USA [email protected] CLAIM 1: X-rays have been used to catalyze...the fruit fly evolutionary process CLAIM 2: Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.



CLAIM 3: A new species is never produced: The fruit flies always remain fruit flies. CLAIM 4: A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual would still not produce a new species! CLAIM 5: Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised CLAIM 6: Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another.



CLAIM 7: The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens.



CLAIM 8: The mutated offspring are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species



CLAIM 9: The classical example of the damaging effects of mutations is to be found in what scientists have done to fruit flies by inducing mutations in them. CLAIM 10: No new species of fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiation the poor creatures.



CLAIM 11: Notice the fact that, in those instances in which damaged fruit flies survive long enough, they change back into regular fruit flies - even those without eyes!



CLAIM 12: There is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better. CLAIM 13: One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution. CLAIM 14: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly CLAIM 1: X-rays have been used to catalyze...the fruit fly evolutionary process Fruit fly generations have been studied longer than the presumed time man has been on earth. According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution." FACT: The x-ray mutagenesis experiments alluded to do not mimic the evolutionary process for two reasons. #1 - the major source of variation in organisms is not mutation, it’s recombination (see note 1) (mixing and matching different versions of genes during the process of sexual reproduction – that's why no two humans - except identical twins - are genetically alike). #2 - furthermore, as I'll mention in more detail below, most mutations are either harmful or neutral (no obvious effect). A very small percentage of mutations are beneficial. The mutagenesis experiments alluded to are not directed at finding beneficial mutations. In fact, these experiments are essentially designed to produce total “freaks” - things that never would occur in nature because they are so obviously not beneficial. For example, flies have two wings. Mutations can create “freak” flies with four wings. This does not even bear on the question of the origin of species, so to suggest that these experiments are designed (or can even be interpreted) to confirm or deny Darwinian ideas of species origins is disingenuous (see also CLAIM 3). CLAIM 2: Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. For example, Ernst Mayr reported on two experiments performed on the fruit fly back in 1948.



In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles was increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: "Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability. The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment." -Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134. FACT: These are interesting quotes from a father of modern evolutionary thought, but entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Note that the authors here choose not to explain the subtle genetic concepts that Mayr introduces. So let me take a crack at it (though this Mayr quote is presented almost entirely devoid of its context, so it is a bit difficult to interpret): Breeding experiments that focus on strong, rapid selection for a given characteristic, while paying no heed to possible harmful (harmful, that is, to organism "general fitness" - i.e. reproductive output) side consequences, will invariably yield flies that have reduced fitness. That such an artificial selection process (in this case, altering the number of sensory structures -bristles- on the body) ends up producing flies with reduced fitness is not at all surprising. Take this as an analogy. If one selects for dogs through classical breeding that have huge or tiny ears, you'll probably end up with a dog that would not fare well in the wild. Sensory bristles are a key characteristic for the proper functioning of a fly. The numbers of bristles in a fly has presumably been molded by natural selection to yield something close to an optimum in its natural environmental context. Is it any surprise that scientists in the lab cannot produce more fit organisms than millions of years of natural selection have produced? No, this is not at all surprising. CLAIM 3: A new species is never produced: The fruit flies always remain fruit flies. After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species. "Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119. FACT: Analyses of closely related species of fruit flies show that the genetic differences between these species are several orders of magnitude larger than "400". And the key thing here is that it's not just any "400" genetic differences anyway. Each one has to be able to produce a fly that is fully functional (when compared to the fly that you started with). These 400 mutations (see note 2), as I stated above, have not been generated to try to produce fully functional flies. Indeed, the goal is to produce “freak” flies so that one can begin to understand what the function of the un-mutated gene is. Geneticists mutate genes to see what defects are caused. The defects that are caused by a specific mutation will help indicate what the function of that gene is when it is in its "normal" (un-mutated) state. For example, a mutation that yields a fly with no eyes indicates that this gene is normally involved in eye production. If a given mutation produces no defects, then the vast majority of biologists are not interested in that mutation for two main reasons. 1) most geneticists are not testing evolutionary ideas with their experiments;

2) it's difficult to track the inheritance of mutations that have no effect, since how would you know if a given fly carried that mutation? There are ways, but they generally involve complex (and expensive and time consuming) molecular biology techniques. Most geneticists are not interested in doing such experiments. Some are, though! See below... In other words, this is a case of apples and oranges: the motivations of fruit fly geneticists for generating the mutations alluded to here had nothing to do with evolution. It sounds, though, like the authors of this article should consider funding or undertaking or at least proposing such research. That would allow them to suggest ways to actually test their hypotheses. CLAIM 4: A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual would still not produce a new species! "Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." -Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33. FACT: Quite right. “A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual” would certainly produce a dead fly. In other words, these are not the right kinds of genetic changes to study the question that is being addressed here. And – here's the key - nobody has to my knowledge claimed that these experiments as described were designed to test the hypothesis that multiple mutations would produce a new species. In other words, the authors of this article are debunking an argument that nobody would ever make! The term for such an argument is "straw man."





CLAIM 5: Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised

-Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61 "In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature." -Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94. FACT: It is important to point out something here: evolutionary biologists have established that the most closely related species to Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies (the lab species) are...are you ready?...other Drosophila fruit flies! In fact, the evolutionary history of (known) fruit flies includes hundreds of described species with a history of greater than 60 million years (see note 3). If one were to generate a "new" species of fruit fly starting with Drosophila melanogaster, then the most reasonable hypothesis is that it would look something like its most closely related sister species, such as Drosophila simulans, Drosophila mauritiana or Drosophila sechellia. And what do these species look like? Almost indistinguishable from Drosophila melanogaster! Only an expert can tell them apart (see note 4). So why are they called different species? When you try to interbreed them, they either won't mate, or, if they do, they won't produce living and/or fertile offspring. That's the definition of "new species," not the production of "something other than a fruit fly." See also: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html CLAIM 6: Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another. FACT: It is certainly true that many mutations, as I noted above, are harmful. These are selected against in nature. Very, very few are beneficial. Most, though, are so-called "neutral" mutations (see note 5). They have no discernable effect on fitness. What role such "neutral" mutations play in evolution is a subject of controversy, but the fact that these mutations exist is undeniable. Still, as I noted and explained above, most mutations that geneticists study are harmful. Such mutations can tell you something useful about the way in which fruit flies are built, but are not very useful in understanding evolution. So for the authors of this essay to suggest that such mutations might tell us something about mechanisms of species evolution is simply comparing apples and oranges. CLAIM 7: The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens.



"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity." -Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.





FACT: Of course this is the case! See my explanation above regarding the Mayr quote on bristle number (CLAIM 2). CLAIM 8: The mutated offspring are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species



"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory." -H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.





FACT: Let me reintroduce the concept of genetic recombination through sexual reproduction. That is the major source of variation in natural populations (see note 1) - the raw material of evolution by natural selection. Recombinationally-produced variants are much more likely to survive and be fit than mutationally-produced variants.
The occasional mutationally-produced variant is, indeed, beneficial (in the context of a given environment, that is). This has been most clearly demonstrated experimentally with E. coli bacteria (see note 6). In bacteria, one can start with a completely genetically homogeneous population of individuals. Any variation that occurs subsequent to that point can be unambiguously traceable to mutation. Then, selection experiments can be (and have been) done to demonstrate that certain mutational variants are favored over others, depending on the environment. This is precisely what Darwin predicted in Origin of Species, chapter 4. Finally, a recent modeling study (see note 7) has produced the intriguing observation that new variants that were slightly harmful on their own, acted as “stepping stones” to evolve increases in complexity. CLAIM 9: The classical example of the damaging effects of mutations is to be found in what scientists have done to fruit flies by inducing mutations in them.



"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors.”

-Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105. FACT: Note the difference between this quote by Dobzhansky (a famous evolutionary geneticist who studied the evolution of various different species of fruit flies), and the wording of the authors. The authors wrote (my emphasis): Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another. Now, contrast this with Dobzhansky's wording: Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors.



I cannot stress enough the importance of the difference between the words "most...more or less" and "are always." Note how the authors try to look balanced in their selective, misleading, out of context or simply irrelevant use of quotes by respected scientists
The authors go on to quote extensively from the same Dobzhansky passage:



The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown. So I assume that by providing this quote, the authors now at least admit that neutral mutations are possible! Even so, Dobzhansky (who did not have access to modern molecular techniques) clearly underestimated the propensity of "neutral" mutations (see note 5). In any case, neutral mutations are a key phenomenon that the authors ignore throughout the rest of the page, and in their own text.



As for the final sentence, all Dobzhansky is saying is what I stated earlier (see CLAIM 2): Is it any surprise that scientists in the lab cannot produce more fit organisms than millions of years of natural selection have produced? No, this is not at all surprising. Now, and here's the rub, if instead of "normal environments" we place such flies in novel environments, then such improvements are possible, and have, indeed, been produced in the lab (see note 8).





CLAIM 10: No new-species of fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiating the poor creatures. "It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world -flies which produce a new generation every eleven days- they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme." -Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48. FACT: As far as I know, no-one has identified a "new enzyme" in any species of fly closely related to Drosophila melanogaster. What researchers have identified are new variants of enzymes (or other non-enzymatic proteins). That's even something that you can see in different populations of Drosophila species from around the world (see note 9). The consensus view is that evolution does not generally involve the appearance of new enzymes/proteins, but, instead, the evolution of novel types and novel usages of existing enzymes/proteins. In fact, the full complement of enzymes/proteins in fruit flies is largely the same as the full complement of enzymes/proteins in humans (see note 10). Evolution by natural selection is all about reshuffling the deck. See also CLAIM 5.





CLAIM 11: Notice the fact that, in those instances in which damaged fruit flies survive long enough, they change back into regular fruit flies - even those without eyes!



FACT: Of course they do! All of the known species of living fruit flies have eyes!!



And this would be no surprise to Darwin or Wallace (the other father of natural selection, a contemporary of Darwin), who clearly stated and accounted for this idea of reversion to the original type (see note 11).





CLAIM 12: There is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better. FACT: This is such a common claim, I'm just going to refer here to another page on Talk.Origins Archives: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html CLAIM 13: One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution. FACT: The "genetic repair mechanism" is simple: fruit flies without eyes are far less fit than fruit flies with eyes, so of course they reverted to the original type! See CLAIM 11.





CLAIM 14: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly



FACT: There are many different species of fruit flies, all with subtle but important differences from other fruit fly species. One would not expect to yield anything other than a fruit fly in lab experiments when that is the way that things happen in nature as well.



In sum, nothing in this article actually addresses the question: how might new species arise in nature? There is a huge scientific literature on this subject, and an overwhelming amount of good evidence that new species result from evolution by natural selection. See the following page on Talk.Origins Archives: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html ________________ [1] Feil EJ, Maiden MC, Achtman M, Spratt BG (1999) The relative contributions of recombination and mutation to the divergence of clones of Neisseria meningitidis. Mol Biol Evol. 16(11):1496-502. 2 actually, there are many more as of 2004; see http://www.flybase.org/ 3 Grimaldi DA (1990) A phylogenetic, revised classification of Genera in the Drosophilidae (Diptera) Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. New York: New York. American Museum of Natural History. 4 Ashburner, M. 1989. Drosophila. Cold Spring Harbor, NY : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. 5 Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M (1999) Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(7):3807-12. see also: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html 6 see the recent impressive work of Dr. Richard Lenski

7 Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, and Adami C. (2003) The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423:139-144. 8 see, for example: Cohan FM, Hoffmann AA (1986) Genetic divergence under uniform selection. II. Different responses to selection for knockdown resistance to ethanol among Drosophila melanogaster populations and their replicate lines. Genetics 114(1): 145-64. 9 see, for example: Saavedra CCR, Napp M, Reguly ML, Valente VLS (2001) Isoenzymatic polymorphisms in urban populations of Drosophila willistoni Rev Chil His Nat 74(1): 47-53. 10 Mushegian AR, Garey JR, Martin J, Liu L (1998) Large-scale taxonomic profiling of eukaryotic model organisms: a comparison of orthologous proteins encoded by the human, fly, nematode, and yeast genomes. Genome Research 8: 590-598. 11 Darwin addressed this concept in Origin of Species, Chapter 5; Alfred Russel Wallace addressed it in his Ternate Essay (1858)
Hey Ganja why don't you take a clue from the Rick Santorum wing of political dark ageism politics? If gathering evidence results in something besides your worldview (evolutionary theory, rising sea levels, environmental monitoring, trickle down economics) why not just make the evidence illegal---it worked in the dark ages and look where that went. Rap
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 04:59 pm
The experiments I had in mind were the ones starting in the early 1900s but more recent work appears to document the same things and even more thoroughly;

http://www.icr.org/article/5779/295/

Quote:

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven't bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.

If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.

Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:............
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 05:13 pm
Same article:

Quote:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 05:14 pm
@farmerman,
NOBODY can visualize anything in four dimensions.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 05:19 pm
same article:

Quote:
Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 05:27 pm
@gungasnake,
bullshit alert!!!!

Your ICR reporter is claiming things that are not onclusionary in the paper by Dr Volhard. Im familiar with this work an its funny how the ICR makes a conclusion from her work that says something totally different. The work that led up to her 1995 Nobel prize was that , in mpst cases, several genes effect 1 phenotypic result and in other cases, one gene can control many. This was what I asked you to read that was work from Dr Thomas Hunt Morgan in the 1930's.
I wish you wouldnt post ICR pablum and consider it evidence. Those guys start from a premise and then cut and paste till they can assert things that arent even there.

If you dont unesrtand genomics but want to, then FUCKIN READ!!! you
dipshit!!. If you just want to gather up lies from the ICR, then I suppose I cant stop you but I will remind others that these are twists of a story.

Why not let everyone know that your last post was by a staff member of ICR
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 06:03 pm
@gungasnake,
Still Do Do Doing the Ganja Snake Dance

The ICR is a young earth creationist group that tends to start with the presence of biblical inerrancy and works to warp their data to fit that presence. As much as they want, IRC publications and research is NOT considered science--at best it is the moral equivalent to Stalinist propaganda.

(Wikipedia) Institute for Creation Research

Brian Thomas (Wiki) is a Young Earth Creationist who has been working as a supposed science writer at the ICR since 2008. His 'expertice' tends to focus itself with lame attempts to prove evolutionary, geologic and astronomic examples of young earth creationism.

Interestingly the ICR publications in general and Mr Thomas' papers in particular are not well recieved even by other Creation/Intelligent Design groups.

Rap
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 06:14 pm
@gungasnake,
ganja wrote:
NOBODY can visualize anything in four dimensions.
Sure you can!--You may not be able to see it in your imagination, but anyone who has ever taken a course in elementary analytic geometry or basic linear algebra can understand how multidimensions greater than three can be manipulated. Rap
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 06:52 pm
@raprap,
They can be manipulated, but they cannot be visuallized. You can use the same math we use for our three dimensional physical unverse for things which have more than three mathematical dimensions, but nobody visualizes anything like that.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 07:44 pm
@raprap,
four dimensional visualization is a standard tool in earth sciences. It includes the concept of deep time. "What would this structural element look like with deposition erosion, uplift, further deposition and then glaciation" We measure the three dimensions of the rock bodies and add forces through time as a fourth

I know that you believe that everythng happened at once or else it didnt occur.

(mathematical) Dimensional analyses are standard tools in chemistry physics and engineering. That which rap mentioned is one, and another is the solution or setting up of equations in one dimension to solve a problem in another is quite common. Hydraulics uses "drum head" dimensional analysis to develop most of the field equations for Darcy flow in oil or water reservoirs,"dimensional analyses" and Dimensional visualization" have both valid definitions and are much applied o daily bases.
Thomas
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 08:08 pm
Farmerman, I admire your patience. I could never put up with creationist bullshit with the stoicism that you muster in these threads every day.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 09:33 pm
@farmerman,
Farmerman, granted that provides a fourth dimension variable, but they are IMHO a series of time dependant snapshots in three dinensions.

To me a good example of a fourth dimensional aspect that I cannot visualize is the vertex of a cubic tesseract where you have four edges coming together, and each edge is perpendicular to the other three. I can manipulate this figure geometrically but I really can't really wrap my mind around it well enough to create a visualization.

As for the inclusion of a fourth dimension into physical models--besides the drum head (AKA wave equation) there are lots of PDE's that are time dependant and used for heat, mass and momentum transfer, molecular orbital theory, quantum mechanics, neutron diffusion (criticality), so on.

Rap
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Programming of Life
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 04:18:50