Support NeoGAF

[Do The Mario]

Now I got a tag

but now I sound like Michael Jackson


Teh awesome!

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Why wouldn't He do that? If you believe, then you believe man was God's most important creation. Why wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing being create a habitat that would provide His creation with all the things he would need throughout the entirety of mankind's time? Again, as an example, if the earth was only "aged" to 6000 years even now, where would our fossil fuels come from? Without them, what sort of lives would we have? If you believe, you simply see it as God looking out for you.

I guess I just can't figure out why that possibility is so hard to imagine.

This thread is hilarious. Too bad fossil fuels are mainly in Arab countries, who want to kill you for your religious beliefs! Yeeha! :lol

 

[fse]

We were cloned by the Annunaki from exisiting humans, and apes, and part of the Annunaki...

 

[geogaddi]

geogdaddi

You are ingonrant, go read my post where describe around 3 or 4 others methods that new genetic information can be generated


I will say this only once again for the thick skulled people in this thread


The theory of evolution has

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

You don’t have a fuckin clue about biology; your posts are full of biological lies stop telling lies.

The thread is about EVOLUTION which is a crystal clear proven scientific theory, not one scientist claims they know how life began there has been limited success in the laboratory and many hypothesis about how and where and most basic forms of life evolved.

Once again know scientist has ever claimed they KNOW how life started it has nothing to do what so ever with the theory of evolution you have prove yourself to have biological education of a 12 year.

Well guess what I can’t account for molecular to biological But I can do one better then fish – philosopher and write about the evolution of

- prokaryotic cells to Humans

I read your posts, but you were just elephant hurling. For example;

A fossil of a worm like animal the “haikouella” found in china provides u
With our next link, it seems to have a brain present, Eyes and its pharyngeal gill silts are believed to have evolved into teeth like structures. It’s an animal like this which is believed to be responsible for the next stage in evolution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't explain how the brain became "present" and you didn't explain how pharyngeal gill slits and eyes evolved into "teeth like structures". You merely stated it. I am sure your book covers the mutation of these things point-by-point. Quote it here in the forum.

or another one;

The oldest vertebrate fossils found are 530 million years old and from china!

1. Now the animals I have discussed are tiny, how could they ever become larger?
Firstly there was an abundance of foods much like how the dinosaurs grew to such large sizes.

2. A complete lack of perdition and competition

It’s organisms like this that gave rise to the most primitive of the larger vertebrates the hagfishes and the primitive development of a vertebral column lampreys and primitive sharks, skates and rays.

How did "organisms like this...gave rise to the most primitive of larger vertebrates..."? You merely stated it. Or, another one;

Vertebrate jaws evolved from skeletal supports of pharyngeal gill silts, this enabled aquatic vertebrates to exploit many new food sources which led to great diversification.

Again, another loaded assertion without the explaining how existing genes mutated (gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. and even these explanations cannot account for new functional information).

I can state stuff too but it doesn't make it true! I can say "So, my pet bird came from Madagascar". I didn't describe

1) if it flew here from Madagascar or
2) if it was shipped/imported from Madagascar or
3) if Madagascar has a teleporation portal with the exit portal right in my living room

But here's why I asked you to look into this - Shannon's theory contains an easy, quantified definition of the word "information", the type that is necessary to test your assertion that mutation cannot create "new information". You can attempt to work his definition into your idea, if you wish - I'd be interested in what you came up with, but at the moment, you have nothing coherent in the first place. For example...

"Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning" for example, ACTG in DNA. That's why one can't "fit" Shannon's Theory of information in organic systems that comprise not only statistics but syntax, semantic, pragmatics and apobetics. They are all discussed here. Information in genes require statistics, syntax, semantic, pragmatics and apobetics with their corresponding trasmitter and receiver.

You have given no reason to see this new gene as a loss of information, and since the original gene that suppresses muscle growth is still present, I can't see how you could possibly justify it on a genetic level. And you haven't even defined information on any other level, or at least, not in a way that lends itself to any sort of analysis.

If the original gene is still present, then you call that existing information. Switching genes on and off is only the switching of existing genes in the gene pool.

Uh, Leslie doesn't seem to mention design at all here. It seems that you've simply substituted the word "design" for "life".

And for reference, complexity does not imply design. Actually, designers tend to make things as simple as possible, since it reduces the chance of failure.

I took your original post out of context. My error.

 

[Do The Mario]

geogaddi

You have NO knowledge of biology what so ever, the lies you are spewing are the equivalent of me making up verses in the bible. Please don’t make posts on what you have NO idea about. You don’t see me making up biblical stories and telling half truths.



Firstly evolution is a very slow process that takes place over millions of years, for example pharyngeal gill silts in fish didn’t become jaws over night like you imply in your post there was a vast array of stages in between.


The process would have been something like this

- A random mutation, reshuffling of genes in meiosis or the fertilization process it’s self would have led to a combination of genes that increased the size of the gill supports.

- The fish with enlarged gill supports would have more efficient at respiration grow to a larger size and is able to out compete the fish without the enlarged supports.

- The result is the extinction of the fish with smaller gill silts as the superior fish take over there ecological niche.

- Greater support of the gills and pharynx if done correctly would lead to greater mobility of the mouth, once again if a mutation occurs via a random mutation, reshuffling of genes in meiosis or the fertilization process it’s self in which leads to greater mobility of the mouth those fish may be able to exploit a new food source and thrive.

As mentioned in this thread this can be proven in simple experiments using bacteria or fungi in which simple organisms can develop resistance to fungicides or penicillin’s via random mutation in the matter of five generations.


This is a scientific theroy that almost every university around the world accepts, now who should I believe some religious zealot on GAF or the universities??

Now can you stop trying to disprove evolution and tell me why I should believe the bible? I am not slandering the biblical theory of origin I have said it’s hard to believe but why don’t you tell how god made us?

All you are doing is nit picking the theory of evolution based on my posts.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

to say that nothing made itself out of nothing and designed itself is the most idiotic thing a person could ever say.

Which is what I keep saying about a Creator. At least a purely scientific look allows for things to start simple, which makes more sense to me.

 

[Maxwell House]

Why wouldn't He do that? If you believe, then you believe man was God's most important creation. Why wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing being create a habitat that would provide His creation with all the things he would need throughout the entirety of mankind's time? Again, as an example, if the earth was only "aged" to 6000 years even now, where would our fossil fuels come from? Without them, what sort of lives would we have? If you believe, you simply see it as God looking out for you.

I guess I just can't figure out why that possibility is so hard to imagine.

This thread truly is way too funny. :lol :lol I am not even kidding. :lol

Wouldn't an omnipotent, all knowing god with total foresight of the future come up with a more elegant and logical way to do things? Are you saying such a powerful being would really feel the need to put fossils of creatures that never existed into the Earth just so we could have fossil fuels? Why not just make fossil fuels be something naturally produced or made in the earth, like molten rocks and lava? The idea that some God would create the earth over a billion years old at inception filled with fossils of extinct species for no good reason is just not logical at all, and IMO, downright silly.

 

[iapetus]

I note geogaddi still hasn't addressed the fact that Genetic Algorithms/Genetic Programming demonstrate in a testable, reproducible and highly useful manner that complex functionality can evolve through mutation and natural selection.

 

[Jeffahn]

I'm hoping for a thread like this every day from now (I've actually spent most of last night reading the whole thing and much of the linked material). I know there've been similar debates in the past but this ws the one I dug into.

It's just crazy fun watching the creationists come up with more and more bizarre meanderings in response to simple questions. The creationist arguement is stagnant and has been for the last 1K odd years. Gradually the acknowledements have come (grudgingly). I mean what are the requirements for becoming a creatinist 'scientist', high school Biology and a Walter Mitty-grade imagination? They need to come together to write a sequel to the Bible, filling in all the chasms and patching-up along the way.

Pity about the 'faith' derailment, but I look forward to the next one anyway.

 

[jett]

So, I'm wondering...how many creationists in this thread are not american?

 

[Dujour]

Sorry to disappoint you, Jeff, but the message of the bible isn't very strong on where we come from, only on where we should be going. A debate like this is almost just rubbing that fact in. Faith's not easy and things like just this make it a little more trying. But having an open mind is what science is all about, right? I believe in evolution to some degree, but in different angles. If there's anything the bible tries to show, it's that we've de-evolved.

 

[Shogmaster]

Sorry to disappoint you, Jeff, but the message of the bible isn't very strong on where we come from, only on where we should be going.

Where's that? Land of intolerance? Alienation and distrust of those who are different? I guess we are right on course.

But having an critical mind is what science is all about, right?

fixed.

 

[geogaddi]

I note geogaddi still hasn't addressed the fact that Genetic Algorithms/Genetic Programming demonstrate in a testable, reproducible and highly useful manner that complex functionality can evolve through mutation and natural selection.

Genetic Algorithms DO NOT simulate biological evolution, this is a huge misconception!

"
- A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

- A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

- Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected. This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation.

- Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMine’s The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma, etc.).

- The flip side to this is that high rates of ‘reproduction’ are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many ‘higher’ organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of ‘offspring’ per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.

- Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.

- The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the ‘genome’ is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best ‘organism’ from mutations, for example. Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).

- The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing. The smallest real world genome is over 0.5 million base pairs (and it is an obligate parasite, which depends on its host for many of the substrates needed) with several hundred proteins coded. This is equivalent to over a million bits of information. Even if a GA generated 1800 bits of real information, as one of the commonly-touted ones claims, that is equivalent to maybe one small enzyme—and that was achieved with totally artificial mutation rates, generation times, selection coefficients, etc., etc. In fact, this is also how the body’s immune system develops specific antibodies, with these designed conditions totally different to any whole organism. This is pointed out in more detail by biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner in his refutation of a skeptic.

- In real organisms, mutations occur throughout the genome, not just in a gene or section that specifies a given trait. This means that all the deleterious changes to other traits have to be eliminated along with selecting for the rare desirable changes in the trait being selected for. This is ignored in GAs.

- There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).

- Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population. The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldane’s Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMine’s analysis of Haldane’s Dilemma.

- Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome. In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when ‘read’ in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the ‘reading’ starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.

- The outcome in a GA is ‘pre-ordained’. Evolution is by definition purposeless, so no computer program that has a pre-determined goal can simulate it—period. This is blatantly true of Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, where the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence. Perhaps if the programmer could come up with a program that allowed anything to happen and then measured the survivability of the ‘organisms’, it might be getting closer to what evolution is supposed to do! Of course that is impossible (as is evolution).

- With a particular GA, we need to ask how much of the ‘information’ generated by the program is actually specified in the program, rather than being generated de novo. A number of modules or subroutines are normally specified in the program, and the ways these can interact is also specified. The GA program finds the best combinations of modules and the best ways of interacting them. The amount of new information generated is usually quite trivial, even with all the artificial constraints designed to make the GA work." (Source)

- A random mutation, reshuffling of genes in meiosis or the fertilization process it’s self would have led to a combination of genes that increased the size of the gill supports.

You said a "combination of genes" lead to an increase in the size of the gill supports? This could only happen if there was ALREADY a gene of large gill supports! This is elementary biology on genetics you should know already,

if you have A, a, B, b, C, c

Combinations are only limited to those variables

AA BB CC = ABC specie
aa bb cc = abc specie
AA Bb CC = ABC, AbC specie
Aa BB Cc = ABC, aBC, aBc, ABc specie
Aa Bb Cc = ABC, abc, aBC, AbC, abC, ABc specie

etc.

You use existing genes, that means, you are saying that during meiosis the gene of large gills existed! The gene of "large gills" cannot pop out of nowhere from genes that are only "small gills", or actually ANY size of gills that are bigger than "small gills".

SG+SG+SG+SG+SG = creates LG ?

If you say that the gills increased in size, where did it get this genetic information/instruction from? Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions cannot account for new functional information either.

This is why I maintain that new information is required for fish-to-philosopher evolution. New species may come about through a reshuffling of genes in meiosis, but the kind remains! This is why natural selection cannot account for macroevolution.

Don't say I lie. When you make a claim like that, you back it up with reasons. These are useless charges that are desperate attempts to discredit me. I had been brainwashed with the doctrine that says that man came from slime since I went to a Sandinista (communist)school in Nicaragua for many years and quite frankly, when I began to notice that operational science (finding a cure for disease, putting men on the moon, designing the MRI scanner) had nothing to do with origins science, I began to re-evaluate my worldview. I understand that re-shaping one's worldview is almost a taboo but quite frankly, it was worth it and I have NEVER regretted it. Call me foolish but usually those that call me foolish have nothing else to say.

Have a wonderful Christmas. Enjoy fritanga.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Wow, this thread has gone from freaky manic religious freaks to geeky intellectual talk in less than a page. This is probably a record.

 

[Raven.]

cellular automata are pretty awesome, but they really have nothing to do with biology (other than the possibility of accelerating related scientific computations)

Just showing how simple rules can actually lead to complex phenomena.

Microevolution occurs primarily by the loss or modification of already existing genetic information. It does not create new base pairs and more codons. But, we do know how base pairs and codons are created, but that only occurs with things like cell division when a copy of the DNA must be made. For macroevolution to occur, new genetic information (i.e. codons that did not exist in the organism before) must somehow come into existence.

So you're saying what is present changes.... it can be duplicated and the duplicate changed either when it's being duplicated or later on... and you're saying that an addition of a gene whose function might be slightly different due to an error in duplication or changes taking place on it later on... does not bring something new? By duplicating, you've additional base pairs, and some of them may even differ from the previous depending on which ones are changed the new gene might have different previously not present codons.

The problem is that a difference or change may be either good or bad depending on the circumstances. You've got countless duplicated genes, their function may be changed aiding or compromising its product with regards to a particular function. This change may also lead to novel function, usually related to prior function( protein cascades, new interactions-aka more or less affinity, structural changes, etc-, catalyzing a reaction involving similar molecules, etc.), given that the original gene is still carrying out its function if the new function or partial function is beneficial it will spread, becoming more and more apt as mutations which improve its function ever more spread if they're beneficial.

Natural selection alone can’t do it—selection involves getting rid of information.

That is very very slick selective wording. It only involves the diminishing or disappearance of certain information as it is displaced by changed but more apt information, whatever it may be(changes in level of expression, slightly or significantly modified function, etc.).

A change in the genetic code may alter the product protein in such away as to subtly change its function. Changes need not make it either nonfunctional or functional. Changes could allow it to function best at slight or substantial different temperature or chemical conditions, or it may allow it to function better or worse under current conditions.

You can certainly see how subtle or subttantial changes in a proteins function may allow an organism to function either slightly better or slightly worse in a particular environment. The information present in individuals with variations which enhance their odds of their survival in a particular environment will become more common in a certain population

Change need not take place in translated portions of the code, it might be of one or a few bases in the promoter elements, only changing the quantity of produced protein. This change may cause subtle or drastic changes in production of said protein, which can make the organism better at survival in a particular region or worse. It is THIS KINDA change that is now believed to be behind a large portion of the difference between different species. Look at chimpanzees they are said to be 98.5 percent identical to humans, yet their phenotype is vastly different. It's been said that it's mostly a matter of degree.

In any case if I recall correctly, Darwin wasn't aware of Mendel's findings. As I've said before, evolution is the LOGICAL OUTCOME of the following scenario: variation within populations together with limited resources will mean there will be a difference in success rate. Look for example at artificial selection, such as the selective breeding of dogs, their phenotypes differ more than even some animals of different but closely related species, yet they're from the same species. Contrast this with some closely related species whose appearance is nigh identical yet they cannot breed, the genes have been rearranged in such away as to prohibit it.


edited

 

[Quantum Mechanic]

I just read the first page because there are more than 300 replies so far and I do have a life so I only want to say

Sure I believe in evolution. Now gravity, that's just bullshit.

very, very funny.

 

[GaimeGuy]

One thing I find interesting about evolution is the fact that it seems that our whole damn evolutionary history is undergone rapidly ass embryos;

I don't remember the specific order, so this might be wrong, but human embryos form webbed feet, then gills....

Looking at fossil evidence also suggests that our common ancestor, as it evolved, form webbed feet, then gills....

It's almost as if the entire history of our genetic makeup over hundreds of millions of years is stored in each and every one of us. The parallels's are pretty astounding. Why this is, I don't know, but it fascinates me, nonetheless.

The changes in the human embryo as it develops almost exactly mirror the changes we have undergone over the last hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Jeffahn]

Genetic Algorithms DO NOT simulate biological evolution, this is a huge misconception!

"
- A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

- A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

- Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected. This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation.

- Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMine’s The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma, etc.).

- The flip side to this is that high rates of ‘reproduction’ are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many ‘higher’ organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of ‘offspring’ per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.

- Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.

- The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the ‘genome’ is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best ‘organism’ from mutations, for example. Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).

- The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing. The smallest real world genome is over 0.5 million base pairs (and it is an obligate parasite, which depends on its host for many of the substrates needed) with several hundred proteins coded. This is equivalent to over a million bits of information. Even if a GA generated 1800 bits of real information, as one of the commonly-touted ones claims, that is equivalent to maybe one small enzyme—and that was achieved with totally artificial mutation rates, generation times, selection coefficients, etc., etc. In fact, this is also how the body’s immune system develops specific antibodies, with these designed conditions totally different to any whole organism. This is pointed out in more detail by biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner in his refutation of a skeptic.

- In real organisms, mutations occur throughout the genome, not just in a gene or section that specifies a given trait. This means that all the deleterious changes to other traits have to be eliminated along with selecting for the rare desirable changes in the trait being selected for. This is ignored in GAs.

- There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).

- Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population. The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldane’s Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMine’s analysis of Haldane’s Dilemma.

- Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome. In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when ‘read’ in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the ‘reading’ starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.

- The outcome in a GA is ‘pre-ordained’. Evolution is by definition purposeless, so no computer program that has a pre-determined goal can simulate it—period. This is blatantly true of Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, where the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence. Perhaps if the programmer could come up with a program that allowed anything to happen and then measured the survivability of the ‘organisms’, it might be getting closer to what evolution is supposed to do! Of course that is impossible (as is evolution).

- With a particular GA, we need to ask how much of the ‘information’ generated by the program is actually specified in the program, rather than being generated de novo. A number of modules or subroutines are normally specified in the program, and the ways these can interact is also specified. The GA program finds the best combinations of modules and the best ways of interacting them. The amount of new information generated is usually quite trivial, even with all the artificial constraints designed to make the GA work." (Source)




You said a "combination of genes" lead to an increase in the size of the gill supports? This could only happen if there was ALREADY a gene of large gill supports! This is elementary biology on genetics you should know already,

if you have A, a, B, b, C, c

Combinations are only limited to those variables

AA BB CC = ABC specie
aa bb cc = abc specie
AA Bb CC = ABC, AbC specie
Aa BB Cc = ABC, aBC, aBc, ABc specie
Aa Bb Cc = ABC, abc, aBC, AbC, abC, ABc specie

etc.

You use existing genes, that means, you are saying that during meiosis the gene of large gills existed! The gene of "large gills" cannot pop out of nowhere from genes that are only "small gills", or actually ANY size of gills that are bigger than "small gills".

SG+SG+SG+SG+SG = creates LG ?

If you say that the gills increased in size, where did it get this genetic information/instruction from? Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions cannot account for new functional information either.

This is why I maintain that new information is required for fish-to-philosopher evolution. New species may come about through a reshuffling of genes in meiosis, but the kind remains! This is why natural selection cannot account for macroevolution.

Don't say I lie. When you make a claim like that, you back it up with reasons. These are useless charges that are desperate attempts to discredit me. I had been brainwashed with the doctrine that says that man came from slime since I went to a Sandinista (communist)school in Nicaragua for many years and quite frankly, when I began to notice that operational science (finding a cure for disease, putting men on the moon, designing the MRI scanner) had nothing to do with origins science, I began to re-evaluate my worldview. I understand that re-shaping one's worldview is almost a taboo but quite frankly, it was worth it and I have NEVER regretted it. Call me foolish but usually those that call me foolish have nothing else to say.

Have a wonderful Christmas. Enjoy fritanga.

Whilst reading all of the above I couldn't help but think back about what it must have been like for Noah; 'encouraging'(with his Camel-whip) a pair of reluctant Brontasauri (made-up) to board his magic Ark. Then loading the 2K odd tonnes of food it would take to feed them for a year and trying to explain to them not to step on smaller animals on their way to the loo. Then would come, perhaps a pair of Ceratosauri or Spinosauri, along with all the meat they would need for a year (tinned of course).

...

 

[worldrunover]

Whilst reading all of the above I couldn't help but think back about what it must have been like for Noah; 'encouraging'(with his Camel-whip) a pair of reluctant Brontasauri (made-up) to board his magic Ark. Then loading the 2K odd tonnes of food it would take to feed them for a year and trying to explain to them not to step on smaller animals on their way to the loo. Then would come, perhaps a pair of Ceratosauri or Spinosauri, along with all the meat they would need for a year (tinned of course).

...

Actually it was only 40 days worth of food!

0Wn3D!

 

[Loki]

One thing I find interesting about evolution is the fact that it seems that our whole damn evolutionary history is undergone rapidly ass embryos;

I don't remember the specific order, so this might be wrong, but human embryos form webbed feet, then gills....

Looking at fossil evidence also suggests that our common ancestor, as it evolved, form webbed feet, then gills....

It's almost as if the entire history of our genetic makeup over hundreds of millions of years is stored in each and every one of us. The parallels's are pretty astounding. Why this is, I don't know, but it fascinates me, nonetheless.

The changes in the human embryo as it develops almost exactly mirror the changes we have undergone over the last hundreds of millions of years.

Google "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Actually it was only 40 days worth of food!

0Wn3D!

:lol

 

[GaimeGuy]

Google "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".




:lol

 

[Jeffahn]

Actually it was only 40 days worth of food!

0Wn3D!

"And, It gets worse. Verse 8:14 says that the earth wasn't dried until Noah's age was 601 years, 2 months, 27 days. That makes 370 days [(601 years + 2 months + 27 days) - (600 years + 2 months + 17 days) = 370 days). It strains our logical reasoning that one verse says the waters were dried up at 314 days and the the very next verse says the earth dried at 370 days."

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/duration_of_flood.html

It varies from 47 days to 47 years, or what ever -it'a alll a bit vague, understand? I didn't write it, but I did learn all the Bible stories at school.

...

 

[LakeEarth]

"And, It gets worse. Verse 8:14 says that the earth wasn't dried until Noah's age was 601 years, 2 months, 27 days. That makes 370 days [(601 years + 2 months + 27 days) - (600 years + 2 months + 17 days) = 370 days). It strains our logical reasoning that one verse says the waters were dried up at 314 days and the the very next verse says the earth dried at 370 days."

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/duration_of_flood.html

It varies from 47 days to 47 years, or what ever -it'a alll a bit vague, understand? I didn't write it, but I did learn all the Bible stories at school.

...

Meh, makes no sense to talk about Noah's Ark as "bible fact", since it was a story incorperated from a completely different religion. I was watching some Discovery Channel shit, and they mentioned two other religions at that time that had stories of massive floods and collection of all the animals and all that.

 

[Jeffahn]

Meh, makes no sense to talk about Noah's Ark as "bible fact", since it was a story incorperated from a completely different religion. I was watching some Discovery Channel shit, and they mentioned two other religions at that time that had stories of massive floods and collection of all the animals and all that.

Yeah, the Bible is in fact like a mish-mashed compendium of folklore and vaguely factual accounts of real events rolled into a nonsensical litany of mis-translations, errors and all too convenient omissions. Noah’s Ark, for example, must have sounded perfectly reasonable to most people pre-1900; having a rather limited view of the world and poorly educated, but there really is no excuse these days, other than that blind, zealous faith.

...

 

[seanoff]

Novembers National Geographic will obviously be banned in some place in the US

My copy has the Front Cover story as WAS DARWIN WRONG.


and the first word in very large type in the story was NO.

please read it and then argue with the heavily Christian professor who after 30 yrs of research agrees with Darwin and surprisingly found that whales are related to Antelope and Hippos (the last 2 strange enough for me and i'd never have guessed that)


Just to prove how complex genes are, ALL domestic dogs are directly descended from wolves. http://www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/dog.htm over about 14000 yrs. so toy poodles share DNA with pitbulls and irish wolfhounds.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

cellular automata are pretty awesome, but they really have nothing to do with biology (other than the possibility of accelerating related scientific computations)

It's the general philosophical and mathematical principles that appeal to me. Namely:

1) Complex patterns can arise from simple rules

2) Slight variations can cause completely different outcomes in recursive systems (ala the butterfly effect)

Applied generally to the universe (not merely biology) the implications are interesting to think about.

 

[Folder]

I keep seeing this thred grow and grow but I've been scared to read it .
Folder's thoughts are:
To those who believe - Well, duh! That's like saying you believe in houses or milk bottles or anything else that clearly exists.
To those who don't - :lol
Tara!