DNA information

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Awesome. Now that you put it that way it does sure sounds nonsensical to say mutations don't bring any new information.

Can't wait for your next comment.

Mutations CANNOT produce a increase of information in the genome. Thats a lie you are being feeded with.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1664-mutations-cannot-produce-new-information?highlight=information

and even IF it could do so, it cannot account for the change of body plans.



Darwins doubt : pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.

This is simply not the case.

Any change in the genome results in "new information".

Meyer goes off at a tangent on "information" to attempt to distract from the fact that the theory of evolution accounts for what's observed in Nature.

Single-gene changes can cause major evolutionary advantages:

Evolution: Revenge of the hopeful monster

Epigenetics reflects the interaction between the genome and the environment - hence, supporting the validity of the theory of evolution.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

point out where i lied, or retract.

I've already done that, liar. Anybody who wants to see where can do a google search using as search keywords 'Jireh' and my name. Using the keyword 'quote-mine' or 'plagiarism' and/or doing a site-specific search at rationalskepticism.org will refine the search to specific examples of your discoursive malfeasance.

You're a known liar and willful ignoramus. Good fucking luck with the retraction.

 

[Elshamah]

point out where i lied, or retract.

I've already done that, liar. Anybody who wants to see where can do a google search using as search keywords 'Jireh' and my name. Using the keyword 'quote-mine' or 'plagiarism' and/or doing a site-specific search at rationalskepticism.org will refine the search to specific examples of your discoursive malfeasance.

You're a known liar and willful ignoramus. Good fucking luck with the retraction.

dont worry, i dont care you to try to debunk my claims. You can't, thats why you resort to personal attacks. How pity. LOL....

 

[Elshamah]

Epigenetics reflects the interaction between the genome and the environment - hence, supporting the validity of the theory of evolution.

Kindest regards,

James

Body plans are not defined through genetics, and so evolution is not a driving force. Thats what epigenetics shows. Epigenetics is far more than what you think. YOu should have a read at the link i provided to you.

 

[Deleted member 619]

dont worry, i dont care you to try to debunk my claims. You can't, thats why you resort to personal attacks. How pity. LOL....

I've already put as much effort into debunking your copypasta and plagiarised bullshit as I need to. Now it's just the potshots from the sidelines, which is still more attention than yiur pathetic apologetics warrant, liar.

 

[tuxbox]

This topic is fun! Keep it up the pressure Hack! :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Epigenetics reflects the interaction between the genome and the environment - hence, supporting the validity of the theory of evolution.

Kindest regards,

James

Body plans are not defined through genetics, and so evolution is not a driving force. Thats what epigenetics shows. Epigenetics is far more than what you think. YOu should have a read at the link i provided to you.

Evolution involves, indeed is, the environment's effect on the genome over time through natural, and other forms of, selection.

Epigenetics helps tell us "how evolution has acted to sculpt bodies".

(The theory of) Evolution is far more than you think.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Epigenetics reflects the interaction between the genome and the environment - hence, supporting the validity of the theory of evolution.

Kindest regards,

James

Body plans are not defined through genetics

Yes they are. That's why you look like your parents for fucks sake. You didn't inherit their actual eyes, you inherited their genes that MAKE your eyes. Dude, please just spend 10 seconds thinking about what you write.

Your body is the result of changes in gene regulation during development, from the formation of the zygote and all the way through your adult life. The genome is constantly interacting with the environment, which is causing changes in how the genes are expressed because the regulators are environmentally sensitive and different factors will cause different expression patterns. That's how genes gives rise to form.

and so evolution is not a driving force.

Yes it is. Because evolution is making changes to both the genes, and how they are regulated through the generations when mutations change the genes and expression patterns and natural selection filters out what works and what doesn't.

Thats what epigenetics shows.

No it isn't. You don't even know what epigenetics is. Epigenetics is merely the inheritance of a pattern of expression over multiple cell-divisions. But that is usually as long as it lasts, a few cell-divisions before the signal molecules are eventually diluted down to preexpression levels.

In fact, it has been described by several esteemed evolutionary biologists, such as Eugene Koonin, to be a form of Lamarckian evolution, in the sense that environmentally caused changes in gene expression patterns in some cells can be passed on to the next few cell generations(so it's actually a kind of passing on of acquired characteristics, which is what Lamarckian evolution is).
But of course, it is of limited application because a highly expressed product in a cell will be diluted down over a few cell divisions if the environment that is causing the high expression of the product returns to nomal. In other words, epigenetic inheritance often doesn't last very long. And it's still evolution. It's just not Darwinian evolution, but a kind of Lamarckian evolution instead.

Notice how, for the most part, this is not how inheritance actually works. Let's take a simple example: Bodybuilders don't give birth to extremely muscular children, so their acquired characteristic (big muscles) is not passed on to their offspring. So inheritance is overwhelmingly Darwinian and Mendelian, not Lamarckian, not epigenetic. If epigenetics was the primary method of inheritance, bodybuilders SHOULD give birth to extremely muscular children. But they don't, their children are completely normal.

Looks like the theory of evolution is doing just fine in face of the discovery of epigenetics.

Epigenetics is far more than what you think.

I know exactly what epigenetics is, and it is easily included into the theory of evolution. You have no idea what it is, you have been reading religious propaganda that have you confused and misinformed. The people you get your information from aren't interested in truth, they are only interested in advancing their specific religious views and stealing your money while doing it.

Of course, you are unfortunately all too willing to believe.

You should have a read at the link i provided to you.

The link you provided is full of lies and things you don't even understand anyway, as I have just demonstrated.

Instead of telling others what to read, what you should do is go and actually read a basic textbook in molecular and developmental biology and try to catch up on some much needed education in developmental biology. I recommend Sean Carroll's (the biologists, not the physicist) book "Endless forms most beautilful - The new science of Evo-Devo".

 

[Rumraket]

Awesome. Now that you put it that way it does sure sounds nonsensical to say mutations don't bring any new information.

Can't wait for your next comment.

Mutations CANNOT produce a increase of information in the genome.

How can you even get yourself to write this shit when it has been so utterly debunked in this very thread?

Do me a favor, go back to the post where I explain how mutations cause new information to arise, and pick out the part you think is wrong and explain how it is wrong. Preferably, do it by refuting the specific examples I gave.

Instead of just mindlessly and brainlessly claiming what you should be trying to prove, why don't you actually try to engage the arguments and examples I gave, instead of this useless copy-pasting you do from books that are written by religious propagandists?

Notice how nothing in the quotes you offer has anything to do with the specific examples I give. So since your quotes are simply not relevant, you need to come up with your own arguments. Which means you have to try to understand the subject instead of just relying on other people to do the talking for you.

 

[momo666]

Mutations CANNOT produce a increase of information in the genome. Thats a lie you are being feeded with.

This has been addressed by hackenslash and Rumraket. Perhaps a better way to phrase your objection would be "Mutations cannot produce a new gene?"

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1664-mutations-cannot-produce-new-information?highlight=information

I tried to read as much as I could but the information is terribly laid out. A bunch of quotes and the use of "JOURNAL OF CREATION" made the whole thing smell fishy.

and even IF it could do so, it cannot account for the change of body plans.

That we will see. While I wait for the responses of the other posters, you might want to take a look at this .

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said , adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

I would love to see a response to this. More importantly the parts marked with red.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Same here.

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.

To me this sounds silly but I would like to see more opinions.

 

[Elshamah]

(The theory of) Evolution is far more than you think.

Kindest regards,

James

from Stephen C. Meyers book : Darwin's doubt : The Sugar Code

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2071-carbohydrates-and-glycobiology-the-3rd-alphabet-of-life-after-dna-and-proteins#3626

in at least the case of the sugar molecules on the cell surface, gene products play no direct role. Genetic information produces proteins and RNA molecules, not sugars and carbohydrates. Of course, important glycoproteins and glycolipids (sugar-protein and sugar-fat composite molecules) are modified as the result of biosynthetic pathways involving networks of proteins. Nevertheless, the genetic information that generates the proteins in these pathways only determines the function and structure of the individual proteins; it does not specify the coordinated interaction between the proteins in the pathways that result in the modification of sugars. More important, the location of specific sugar molecules on the exterior surface of embryonic cells plays a critical role in the function that these sugar molecules play in intercellular communication and arrangement. Yet their location is not determined by the genes that code for the proteins to which these sugar molecules might be attached.

Many cellular structures are built from proteins, but proteins find their way to correct locations in part because of preexisting three-dimensional patterns and organization inherent in cellular structures. Neither structural proteins nor the genes that code for them can alone determine the three-dimensional shape and structure of the entities they build. Gene products provide necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the development of three-dimensional structure within cells, organs, and body plans. If this is so, then natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.


One of the biological dogmas is that self-replicating nucleic acids (the first revolution in evolution) provided the basis for development of early life through translation of nucleotide sequence into a sequence of amino acids to create the main effectors of life at the cellular level – the proteins (the second revolution in evolution). The integration of different cells into a complex multicellular organism required additional layers of complexity and the invention of glycans (the third revolution in evolution) through its inherent ability to create novel structures without the need to mutate the genetic information, but to alter it by epigenetic modifications instead, thus providing multicellular organisms with a mechanism to compensate for their longer generation time by using their higher complexity for rapid adaptation to various environmental challenges.

 

[Elshamah]

[

I tried to read as much as I could but the information is terribly laid out. A bunch of quotes and the use of "JOURNAL OF CREATION" made the whole thing smell fishy. .

yes, sorry. I did not spend much time at the topic, i just collected what i found. But you can acess the links provided there. If JOurnal of creation smells fishy to you, it is because you are biased. Not a good start to find the best explanation.......

 

[Elshamah]

How can you even get yourself to write this shit when it has been so utterly debunked in this very thread?

Do me a favor, go back to the post where I explain how mutations cause new information to arise, and pick out the part you think is wrong and explain how it is wrong. Preferably, do it by refuting the specific examples I gave.

Instead of just mindlessly and brainlessly claiming what you should be trying to prove, why don't you actually try to engage the arguments and examples I gave, instead of this useless copy-pasting you do from books that are written by religious propagandists?

Notice how nothing in the quotes you offer has anything to do with the specific examples I give. So since your quotes are simply not relevant, you need to come up with your own arguments. Which means you have to try to understand the subject instead of just relying on other people to do the talking for you.

ok, i will correct my phrase above. Mutations CANNOT produce a increase of USEFUL information in the genome.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/rush_to_judgmen073791.html

mutagenesis experiments show how early acting body plan mutations -- the very mutations that would be necessary to produce whole new animals from a pre-existing animal body plan -- inevitably produce embryonic lethals.

He does not address Meyer's fourth critique of the neo-Darwinian mechanism by explaining how mutations could alter development gene regulatory networks to produce new developmental regulatory networks, though the production of such a new regulatory network is an important requirement for building any new animal body plan from a pre-existing body plan

Finally, Matzke does not explain how mutations in DNA alone could produce the epigenetic ("beyond the gene") information necessary to build new animal body plans, a problem that has led many evolutionary biologists to seek a new theory of and mechanism for major evolutionary innovation. -

 

[Rumraket]

(The theory of) Evolution is far more than you think.

Kindest regards,

James

from Stephen C. Meyers book : Darwin's doubt : The Sugar Code

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2071-carbohydrates-and-glycobiology-the-3rd-alphabet-of-life-after-dna-and-proteins#3626

in at least the case of the sugar molecules on the cell surface, gene products play no direct role. Genetic information produces proteins and RNA molecules, not sugars and carbohydrates. Of course, important glycoproteins and glycolipids (sugar-protein and sugar-fat composite molecules) are modified as the result of biosynthetic pathways involving networks of proteins. Nevertheless, the genetic information that generates the proteins in these pathways only determines the function and structure of the individual proteins; it does not specify the coordinated interaction between the proteins in the pathways that result in the modification of sugars. More important, the location of specific sugar molecules on the exterior surface of embryonic cells plays a critical role in the function that these sugar molecules play in intercellular communication and arrangement. Yet their location is not determined by the genes that code for the proteins to which these sugar molecules might be attached.

Many cellular structures are built from proteins, but proteins find their way to correct locations in part because of preexisting three-dimensional patterns and organization inherent in cellular structures. Neither structural proteins nor the genes that code for them can alone determine the three-dimensional shape and structure of the entities they build. Gene products provide necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the development of three-dimensional structure within cells, organs, and body plans. If this is so, then natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.


One of the biological dogmas is that self-replicating nucleic acids (the first revolution in evolution) provided the basis for development of early life through translation of nucleotide sequence into a sequence of amino acids to create the main effectors of life at the cellular level – the proteins (the second revolution in evolution). The integration of different cells into a complex multicellular organism required additional layers of complexity and the invention of glycans (the third revolution in evolution) through its inherent ability to create novel structures without the need to mutate the genetic information, but to alter it by epigenetic modifications instead, thus providing multicellular organisms with a mechanism to compensate for their longer generation time by using their higher complexity for rapid adaptation to various environmental challenges.

What the hell kind of response is this to Dragan Glas's post? It's just a wall of copy-pasta with little to no relevance. What are you even trying to say with this irrelevant text? How does it impact Dragan's claim?

Seriously, can you spend like 2 minutes trying to read what other posters write, and then actually address it, instead of just brainlessly scanning your own webpage for a large chunck of text with only tangential relevance to copy-paste in here? This is ridiculous. You might as well just run around on the streets and literally throw bibles in peoples faces while you yell "READ THIS READ THIS READ THIS".

You're like the forum version of the yelling street preacher who is bothering everyone on the train by standing in the walking isle and yelling at random travelers. Sit down and shut the fuck up please.

 

[Elshamah]

It's just a wall of copy-pasta with little to no relevance. What are you even trying to say with this irrelevant text? How does it impact Dragan's claim?

Seriously, can you spend like 2 minutes trying to read what other posters write, and then actually address it, instead of just brainlessly scanning your own webpage for a large chunck of text with only tangential relevance to copy-paste in here? This is ridiculous. You might as well just run around on the streets and literally throw bibles in peoples faces while you yell "READ THIS READ THIS READ THIS".

You're like the forum version of the yelling street preacher who is bothering everyone on the train by standing in the walking isle and yelling at random travelers. Sit down and shut the fuck up please.

If that :

natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.

is not relevant, i don't know what is.... LOL......

 

[Elshamah]

Epigenetics reflects the interaction between the genome and the environment - hence, supporting the validity of the theory of evolution.


Body plans are not defined through genetics
Yes they are..

See my post above..... :idea:

 

[Inferno]

Elshamah, get out of this thread, you have nothing to add apart from lies. Stick to the threads you've already opened, how about that?

As for momo666: I'll try to dig up the post I made a while back, but "addition of information" can be observed even using the most restrictive, creationist definitions of what that means. (Never mind that no one creationist is ever consistent with his/her definition of information...)

For example, snakes have X amount of ribs. Is X+1 amount of ribs an "addition of information"? Most creationists would claim that it isn't.
Fish don't have hands or feet, but what if a fish with hands or feet were to develop? Would that be an "addition of information"?

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

How about bacteria losing a gene, but they're now able to eat new and previously toxic food? Is that a loss or an addition of information?
How about animals gaining a gene and now being able to eat new and previously toxic food? Is that an addition?

All of the above have been observed and it's easy to find them on the net.

 

[Rumraket]

How can you even get yourself to write this shit when it has been so utterly debunked in this very thread?

Do me a favor, go back to the post where I explain how mutations cause new information to arise, and pick out the part you think is wrong and explain how it is wrong. Preferably, do it by refuting the specific examples I gave.

Instead of just mindlessly and brainlessly claiming what you should be trying to prove, why don't you actually try to engage the arguments and examples I gave, instead of this useless copy-pasting you do from books that are written by religious propagandists?

Notice how nothing in the quotes you offer has anything to do with the specific examples I give. So since your quotes are simply not relevant, you need to come up with your own arguments. Which means you have to try to understand the subject instead of just relying on other people to do the talking for you.

ok, i will correct my phrase above. Mutations CANNOT produce a increase of USEFUL information in the genome.

Why not? Because you write it in caps and red color? Explain what is wrong with the examples I gave.

In the Lenski long-term evolution experiment with E coli, the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate when oxygen was present, by gene duplications and rearrangement of the duplicate gene. That is new information, and it is useful because the bacteria can now grow under conditions they could not before.

Let's make a funny little thought experiment here. A man has been bitten by a dog, and you are to send a message to emergency services to get them to send an ambulance.

You get the following string of words that you have to mutate a few times and send
Man bites dog.
So it first mutates with a "duplication" into
Man bites dog. Man bites dog.
And then the order of words in the last sentence are mutated by a reversion
Man bites dog. Dog bites man.

Looks to me like you have now produced useful information. Information that can be used and understood by emergency cervices.

In the first sentence, we are not being informed that the dog has bitten the man. That information simply isn't there. But in the last sentence, all the information in the first sentence is still there (Man bites dog), but we have also created some totally new information (the fact that the dog bit the man). So now emergency services know to send an ambulance (in addition to a veterinarian).

So you are provably incorrect. Both on account of a concrete real-world example with bacteria in an experiment, and you are wrong on account of a simple thought experiment with written english.

 

[Rumraket]

Epigenetics reflects the interaction between the genome and the environment - hence, supporting the validity of the theory of evolution.


Body plans are not defined through genetics
Yes they are..

See my post above..... :idea:

See mine, again. Read it for comprehension, explain what is wrong with what I say.

 

[Rumraket]

It's just a wall of copy-pasta with little to no relevance. What are you even trying to say with this irrelevant text? How does it impact Dragan's claim?

Seriously, can you spend like 2 minutes trying to read what other posters write, and then actually address it, instead of just brainlessly scanning your own webpage for a large chunck of text with only tangential relevance to copy-paste in here? This is ridiculous. You might as well just run around on the streets and literally throw bibles in peoples faces while you yell "READ THIS READ THIS READ THIS".

You're like the forum version of the yelling street preacher who is bothering everyone on the train by standing in the walking isle and yelling at random travelers. Sit down and shut the fuck up please.

If that :

natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.

is not relevant, i don't know what is.... LOL......

Explain how this is relevant to Dragan Glas's claim that the theory of evolution is far more than you think.

So you produce this mindless claim from someone else, that evolution cannot produce new forms over the history of life. What relevance does this have to the claim that you are not very well informed about what evolution is?