[_ Old Earth _] Darwin got it right, again...

[Barbarian]

Adaptive evolution is shaped by the interaction of population genetics, natural selection and underlying network and biochemical constraints. Variation created by mutation, the raw material for evolutionary change, is translated into phenotypes by flux through metabolic pathways and by the topography and dynamics of molecular networks. Finally, the retention of genetic variation and the efficacy of selection depend on population genetics and demographic history. Emergent high-throughput experimental methods and sequencing technologies allow us to gather more evidence and to move beyond the theory in different systems and populations. Here we review the extent to which recent evidence supports long-established theoretical principles of adaptation.

Determinants of fixation of adaptive alleles
The interaction of the selective coefficient (s), effective population size (Ne) and initial frequency (p0) determines the probability of fixation of an adaptive allele. The x axis is log-transformed for clarity. Homo sapiens10, Arabidopsis thaliana14 and Caenorhabditis elegans117 all have small historical Ne values (of ~10,000), and the probability of fixing a strongly adaptive allele is much lower than for populations with a high Ne (such as Drosophila melanogaster118 and Escherichia coli119, which have Ne values of 1.1 million and 25 million, respectively). Higher initial frequency increases the chances of fixation of adaptive alleles45.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748133/figure/F1/

 

[KevinK]

What does this all mean?

 

[Milk-Drops]

What does this all mean?

Basically that natural selection works, and that once a beneficial trait bleeds into the gene pool, populations work to perpetuate and stabilize said mutation.

 

[Edward]

Darwin did not get it right and they know that now. There is no bio-genesis, nor adaptive mutations because of the lack of new information that would be needed for such mutations. To mutate, there would need to be information downloaded to the genes and this doesn't happen by chance. This would be akin to needing a now computer program and it just happens by chance to download and install from nothing. They can cast doubt upon this with scientific babble, but it doesn't change the truth.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Darwin did not get it right and they know that now. There is no bio-genesis,

Darwin wasn't a proponent of Abio-genesis.

nor adaptive mutations because of the lack of new information that would be needed for such mutations.

Sorry, my interest and focus when I was studying biology in College for my BA was focused on Phylogeny. I've seen the reserach and did several experiments where I've seen mutations in real time.

To mutate, there would need to be information downloaded to the genes and this doesn't happen by chance.

Genes are not computers or computer code. Genese are naturally reacturing segments of DNA and RNA. When the strands are replicated the genes can be effected by duplication, deletion, being rearanged, etc. This is new information.

This would be akin to needing a now computer program and it just happens by chance to download and install from nothing. They can cast doubt upon this with scientific babble, but it doesn't change the truth.

Unless of course you actually know what you are talking about and realize that genetics is not computer code and that DNA replication and mutations don't come form nothing, but from the very cells of another organism. Hardly from nothing.

 

[Edward]

Darwin wasn't a proponent of Abio-genesis.

Sorry, my interest and focus when I was studying biology in College for my BA was focused on Phylogeny. I've seen the reserach and did several experiments where I've seen mutations in real time.

Genes are not computers or computer code. Genese are naturally reacturing segments of DNA and RNA. When the strands are replicated the genes can be effected by duplication, deletion, being rearanged, etc. This is new information.

Unless of course you actually know what you are talking about and realize that genetics is not computer code and that DNA replication and mutations don't come form nothing, but from the very cells of another organism. Hardly from nothing.

You'd still need information in the DNA to tell it what to change and what new wings to grow or whatever. That doesn't come from nowhere. Soo, you can believe in evolution in you want to.

 

[Milk-Drops]

You'd still need information in the DNA to tell it what to change and what new wings to grow or whatever. That doesn't come from nowhere. Soo, you can believe in evolution in you want to.

Ed I think you fail to understand what I'm saying. "Information" as you are using doesn't make sense unless you specifically define what it is you mean by that. Genes are strands of protein in specific combinations. Genes effect the development and operations of an organisms. Mutations happen when DNA is copied by another cell. Information is just taking a strand and identifying what its roll is. WE apply this gene/information is then read by a cell to know what its supposed to do. This isn't even Evoltuion we are talking about, this is basic Genetics. This is down to how cells work.

 

[Edward]

Ed I think you fail to understand what I'm saying. "Information" as you are using doesn't make sense unless you specifically define what it is you mean by that. Genes are strands of protein in specific combinations. Genes effect the development and operations of an organisms. Mutations happen when DNA is copied by another cell. Information is just taking a strand and identifying what its roll is. WE apply this gene/information is then read by a cell to know what its supposed to do. This isn't even Evoltuion we are talking about, this is basic Genetics. This is down to how cells work.

Well, I'm not a geneticist or anything, but my (limited) understanding is that, If a aniomal decides it needs wings or legs and needs to grow them, that design information for the change doesn't come from nothing. It has to be inserted or downloaded. We do not get order from chaos. If there's design, then there's a designer, and from what I've been listening to lately, this is becoming well accepted in the scientific community that Darwin was way off, and his theories do not hold water.

(This is why they're switching gears from evolution to Alien seeding of the planet, because evolution doesn't make sense in this day and age.)

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well, I'm not a geneticist or anything, but my (limited) understanding is that, If a aniomal decides it needs wings or legs and needs to grow them, that design information for the change doesn't come from nothing. It has to be inserted or downloaded.

That is not theory of Evolution in the slightest. The closest theory to what you are talking about is called Lemarkism. That theory is that organisms willfully cause traits to appear. Darwin and Mendel, ( The father of the theory of Evolution, and The Father of Genetics) both rejected this idea. Their theories replaced Lemarkism. Darwin noted that species adapt, and its not the species that is willing the changes, but the surrounding environment that causes the change. That is Natural Selection. Mendel was the one who figured out that Mutations and genes arose. Not all genes and mutations are good. Most are neutral or bad.

Organisms don't will change, they don't download information from other organisms. organisms combine genetic strands or copy genetic strands when reproducing. Mutations happen here.

We do not get order from chaos. If there's design, then there's a designer,

The human mind is interesting in its ability to form answers out of chaos. Its how language happens. There are pasterns. Chemicals have properties. There is chaos in a mathematical sense. However, there is order because chemicals have properties. By the way, how can there be chaos if there is a design? Wouldn't that thwart design?

and from what I've been listening to lately, this is becoming well accepted in the scientific community that Darwin was way off, and his theories do not hold water.

I don't know what communities you are looking at, Biology and BioChemistry still hold to the theory of Evolution. The very fields that actually uses the theory still hold to it. A bunch of people on a web forum or creationist group, aren't the scientific community.

(This is why they're switching gears from evolution to Alien seeding of the planet, because evolution doesn't make sense in this day and age.)

IF you re talking about pan-spermia, no one takes those people seriously, mainly because there is no evidence. However the "history" channel with their "experts", with their "training", isn't the scientific community either.

In college, we laughed these people for the same reason we laugh at the ID movement and the Homeopathy movement. They don't have evidence and are not accepted theories.

 

[turnorburn]

These theorists need to take it down a notch by picking up a bible and reading from Job..

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

tob

 

[KevinK]

So is this basically a recent mathematical study that supports traditional theories of evolution through the mutation-driven process of natural selection? That fixation of an adaptive allele is positively supported by both high population size (lots of fruitflies; much smaller number of humans) and high initial phenotypical expression (say for example most fruitflies are born with wings; the few born w/o are small in number, generally die before reproducing, and could not even be properly called flies at all.) Is this a new study that crunches old numbers, or brand new data?

 

[KevinK]

Hey, I think that graph has an error. Can anyone else spot it?

 

[KevinK]

No-one?

Hint: What's in a name?

 

[Edward]

Right on Lewis.

 

[KevinK]

Bigger hint: D.Melanogaster

 

[Edward]

I had no clue brother but did google it after the last hint because it fly right over my head...

 

[KevinK]

Oddly enough, there's a Drosophila melanogaster buzzing my computer screen as I type. Anyways, the nomenclature is off. The proper taxonomy capitalizes the genus (Drosophila) and uses lower-case for the species (melanogaster). This is true even when using abbreviations (D. melanogaster). Plus, there should be a space between the genus and species.

I think it's confusing because there is a genus Melanogaster, but this is a type of hoverfly, rather than the common fruitfly.

 

[rthom7]

I am not an expert in Genetics, I do wish I could have studied it more in my Science degree though...

My understanding is Mendel's work on how gene pools work and animals adapt is a Creation concept, not an Evolution one.

If God is an engineer of function and dysfunction, He programed into all living things the ability to cope should things become missing from their ideal standards.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil "bara" engineer "ra" dysfunction: I the LORD do all these things.(KJV)

Some from Creation website (Answers in Genesis) say even viruses may have had a functional purpose in keeping the DNA in check in living things...spiders too were originally vegetarian, as dogs and lions are even today if you feed them so.
So if the world becomes more dysfunctional the genetic codes have to have enough variety built in to cope with the changes in environment....so God creates kind with an enormous change potential...

Natural selection by evolution is really Devolution, because when a species is selected to survive, the gene pool variation is reduced, not increase as Evolution says it must. Even since Creation the gene pool of information has been decreasing over time, not increasing.

Not sure of DNA code so my expertise on this is limited....but when the genes swap at various chromosomes they do not break willy nilly at DNA lengths, but at specific places where information exchange occurs. The DNA helix is just a long strand of ACTG molecules, they contain something the protein molecules don't have themselves, INFORMATION. How did this intelligence CODE get there ? By change ? Hardly.

I am a computer programmer too and write many examples of code. Even neural network code has to be trained before it does anything useful. Mutations by the way is never new CODE, it is always a LOSS of code, forming logical errors which an organism may put up with or do gene repair, or syntax errors which always cause immediate death of the foetus during development, or diseases at birth. There are no examples that I know of any random mutation forming in increase in DNA information.

Hope this helps
SHalom

 

[Edward]

That is the 64,000 dollar question, isn't it? Where'd the information come from? They can't answer that (effectively).

 

[Barbarian]

I am not an expert in Genetics, I do wish I could have studied it more in my Science degree though...

My understanding is Mendel's work on how gene pools work and animals adapt is a Creation concept, not an Evolution one.

Mendel (who was a supporter of Darwin) thought it was an evolutionary concept. In fact, his worked cleared up a major problem with Darwin's theory. He sent Darwin a copy of his paper, but it appears that Darwin, who got a flood of papers daily, never got around to reading it. It was found in his library unopened. Later, when Mendel's work was rediscovered, the revelation that heredity was particulate made it possible to understand how new traits could become established in a population.

If God is an engineer of function and dysfunction

He's not. He's a creator. Interestingly, engineers are now borrowing from Him, using evolutionary processes to handle problems that can't be solved by design. God knew best, after all..

Some from Creation website (Answers in Genesis) say even viruses may have had a functional purpose in keeping the DNA in check in living things...spiders too were originally vegetarian, as dogs and lions are even today if you feed them so.

Show us those vegetarian spiders. And while dogs can live on vegetable matter alone, cats cannot.

Proteins derived from animal tissues have a complete amino acid profile. (Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Think of them as pieces of a puzzle.) Plant-based proteins do not contain the full complement (puzzle pieces) of the critical amino acids required by an obligate carnivore. The quality and composition of a protein (are all of the puzzle pieces present?) is also referred to as its biological value.


Humans and dogs can take the pieces of the puzzle in the plant protein and, from those, make the missing pieces. Cats cannot do this. This is why humans and dogs can live on a vegetarian diet but cats cannot. (Note that I do not recommend vegetarian diets for dogs.)


Taurine is one of the most important nutrients present in meat but it is missing from plants. Taurine deficiency will cause blindness and heart problems in cats.
http://www.catinfo.org/#Cats_Need_Animal-Based_Protein_

Natural selection by evolution is really Devolution, because when a species is selected to survive, the gene pool variation is reduced, not increase as Evolution says it must. Even since Creation the gene pool of information has been decreasing over time, not increasing.

Impossible. For example, if you accept the fact that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, there could be at most four different alleles for each gene locus, unless variation increased by mutation and natural selection. And yet most human gene loci have dozens of alleles.

Not sure of DNA code so my expertise on this is limited....but when the genes swap at various chromosomes they do not break willy nilly at DNA lengths, but at specific places where information exchange occurs. The DNA helix is just a long strand of ACTG molecules, they contain something the protein molecules don't have themselves, INFORMATION. How did this intelligence CODE get there ? By change ? Hardly.

Turns out that RNAs can self-catalyze. Of course, this has nothing whatever to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory is indifferent to the way life first began. Darwin, for example, assumed God did it.

I am a computer programmer too and write many examples of code. Even neural network code has to be trained before it does anything useful.

Why would it be difficult to see that God could create a world with the capacity to produce all these things? After all, He said that the earth brought forth living things as He intended.

by the way is never new CODE, it is always a LOSS of code,

No, that's wrong. There are many, many examples of useful new information being produced by mutation. And of course, every new mutation in a population adds to information. Would you like to see how population geneticists determine it?

forming logical errors which an organism may put up with or do gene repair, or syntax errors which always cause immediate death of the foetus during development, or diseases at birth. There are no examples that I know of any random mutation forming in increase in DNA information.

Let's first focus on useful information, rather than just code information. What would you consider useful new information to be in a biological system?