• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
:french:

We all know that mutations are damage and yet....

...right now, humans are experiencing favorable new mutations:


Apolipoprotein AI-Milano
Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

Increased bone density
One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects...As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

Malaria resistance
The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.


This illustrates an important aspect of favorable mutations. The first mutations are likely to be only somewhat better than the old allele. In the case of Hb-S, the survival rate of children of people having one Hb-S gene is higher than that for children of people with normal genes in malaria areas, but about 25% of their children will still have a severe illness. The new mutation provides almost complete protection with very little illness, a considerable improvement on the first mutation.

Tetrachromatic vision

Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.



Diabetes Resistance
In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altshuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t. The scientists weren’t looking for genetic mutations that cause diabetes but rather hoping to find mutations that prevent it. Their search paid off; last year, the group reported in Nature Genetics that people who have particular mutations in a gene called SLC30A8 (Solute carrier family 30, member 8) are 65% less likely to get diabetes, even when they have risk factors like obesity (1).

Ability to thrive in low-oxygen environments
Scientists have long known how the people of the Tibetan Plateau, including Nepal’s famous mountain-climbing Sherpa, deal with oxygen levels up to 40% less than those at sea level. Unlike most mountain climbers, whose bodies acclimatize to higher elevations by temporarily boosting hemoglobin—a blood protein that carries oxygen throughout the body—Tibetans have evolved a suite of other biochemical adaptations that let their bodies use oxygen extremely efficiently. That’s good news for the Tibetans, because too much hemoglobin makes the blood harder to pump and likelier to clot, increasing the chances of stroke and heart disease.

But the details of Tibetans’ adaptations have been a mystery. Previous studies have suggested that two genes, EPAS1 (inherited from ancient hominins known as Denisovans) and ELGN1, play roles in reducing hemoglobin and boosting oxygen use.

The team looked for common variants among the Tibetan genomes; they then computed whether those variants likely spread throughout the population by chance or by natural selection. EPAS1 and ELGN1 predictably popped out as strong candidates for evolutionary adaptations, they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. So did seven additional genes: MTHFR, RAP1A, NEK7, ADH7, FGF10, HLA-DQB1, and HCAR2.

In Tibetans, the ADH7 gene variant is associated with higher weight and BMI scores, which could help the body store energy during particularly lean times on the hardscrabble plateau. The MTHFR variant also helps with nutrient deficiency: It boosts production of the vitamin folate, important for pregnancy and fertility. Folate breaks down when exposed to high levels of UV radiation, so high folate levels would compensate for their increased UV exposure. And HLA-DQB1 belongs to a family of genes that regulates proteins critical to the immune system, particularly important given that extreme living conditions like malnutrition can make people more susceptible to disease, Yang says. What the other four gene variants do is less clear, but they could be an evolutionary response to selective pressures besides high altitude.

The team also used its analysis to pin down a likely date for the split between Tibetans and the closely related Han Chinese population: approximately 4725 years ago, or some 189 generations back.

Lactose Tolerance
Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk.


Other Examples:

Nylonase: Nylon Bacteria
Nylonase is an example of beneficial mutation in bacteria. The nylonase bacteria can eat short molecules of nylon (nylon-6). The mutation in these bacteria involves insertion of a single nucleotide in the genetic material. It is estimated that this frameshift mutation might have occurred in the 1940s when nylon was invented. Nylonase can be used in wastewater treatment plants.

Gene Mutation: Almond Trees
Almond seeds from wild species contain amygdalin, a bitter chemical that converts into cyanide inside the human body. According to researchers, consuming wild almonds is fatal. A single gene mutation in wild almond trees resulted in a variety that no longer synthesizes amygdalin. When humans discovered this non-bitter almond species, they cultivated them, which is continued till today.

New Enzyme System
Bacteriologist Barry Hall observed, over a number of months, the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria. The first mutation modified an existing enzyme to work on the new sugar in the culture. It worked O.K., but wasn't great. As time went on, subsequent mutations improved the enzyme until was very effective. Then, to Hall's surprise, another useful mutation produced a regulator.

Regulators assure that a particular enzyme will be produced only when the specific substance is also present. So now the system is irreducibly complex, requiring the regulator, the enzyme, and the substrate.


And...

you know the rest.
...

... lots more of those out there. This is just a sampling. Not bad for "damage."
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's OK if you don't want to apologize and have a civil conversation. It's SOP for YE creationists to not engage in civil conversation because they think it's the only way for them to win an argument, since they lose on logic,reason, and evidence.



No, he did something much better. He worked out a way to measure the information in a genome and the nomenclature to make it work. This is why the "information" argument always loses for YE creationists.



It's been observed to happen countless times. No point in denying what I've already shown you. Would you like to see a list of useful mutations, again?



And the additional information occasionally is useful. More often, it's not, but of course natural selection deals with that. It's why engineers are now copying nature, using evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design.



That's one use of Shannon's theory. The first one, however, was (as you just learned) in population genetics which studies the evolution of populations.



Which is how evolution works. The message can be approximately the original, and be slightly better for the survival of the organism. This increased information can be useful and as Hardy and Weinberg noted, thus become more prevalent in the population.

Shannon's equation can explain why the error-correcting process in DNA is good but not perfect. Too much mutation would be harmful for a population,but none at all would doom it to extinction.
Shannon didn't find the secret to genetics using errors in messages to change the message from something that worked to a different message that also worked. And it's not only because one can almost never get lucky enough to have errors create a coherent message from the original message. It's because the receiver, and thus the feedback, will be acting differently than what the original message could code for.

On the topic of "intent" or "meaning" - Shannon assumed the reason messages needed to remain perfect or perfect enough that the message could be understood *as the original message* was because the original message was important. Shannon states what the problem is he's trying to solve. And he says: "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Shannon didn't find the secret to genetics using errors in messages to change the message from something that worked to a different message that also worked.

He merely produced the theory that allows population geneticists to better understand how evolution works. You're very wrong in your assumption:

IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2006; 25(1): 30–33.
Claude Shannon: Biologist
The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
THOMAS D. SCHNEIDER
ABSTRACT:
...Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist...



And it's not only because one can almost never get lucky enough to have errors create a coherent message from the original message.

I showed so many examples of exactly that, that I got an infraction for the length of the post.

Perhaps you haven't given much thought about what the purpose of protein synthesis is, in terms of survival.

Do you understand why it matters that there will always be "noise" in replication, and this is essential, not only to evolution, but to the survival of the population?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
He merely produced the theory that allows population geneticists to better understand how evolution works. You're very wrong in your assumption: COLOR="#800000"]IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2006; 25(1): 30–33.Claude Shannon: BiologistThe Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel CapacityTHOMAS D. SCHNEIDERABSTRACT:...Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist...[/COLOR]I showed so many examples of exactly that, that I got an infraction for the length of the post. Perhaps you haven't given much thought about what the purpose of protein synthesis is, in terms of survival. Do you understand why it matters that there will always be "noise" in replication, and this is essential, not only to evolution, but to the survival of the population?

Assuming the truth of your religion is no way to respond to a challenge. :nono:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
He merely produced the theory that allows population geneticists to better understand how evolution works. You're very wrong in your assumption:

IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2006; 25(1): 30–33.
Claude Shannon: Biologist
The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
THOMAS D. SCHNEIDER
ABSTRACT:
...Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist...





I showed so many examples of exactly that, that I got an infraction for the length of the post.

Perhaps you haven't given much thought about what the purpose of protein synthesis is, in terms of survival.

Do you understand why it matters that there will always be "noise" in replication, and this is essential, not only to evolution, but to the survival of the population?
You're not addressing the problem. Shannon showed how to measure information, but the problem he was trying to solve was stated thusly: "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

And the problem isn't just that noise can make the message incoherent. The problem is that a receiver won't act according to the message the sender sent. The receiver will also send back incorrect feedback because the feedback will be based on an incorrect action.

That's why Shannon is so important. Because reproducing a sender's message perfectly, or near perfect enough so the receiver can act as if it were the exact message sent, is the only hope of keeping a system running.

Your examples don't address the question, and worse, they represent regressions. And even worse, the example of a New Enzyme System is not irreducibly complex.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You're not addressing the problem.

Rather, you're evading the issue. As you now realize, Shannon's first work in information theory was in the issues of population biology and his breakthrough helped make clear how evolution proceeds in a population, giving biologists a way to measure evolutionary change.

Shannon showed how to measure information, but the problem he was trying to solve was stated thusly: "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

Yep. Which is what a mutation is. Reproducing approximately a message selected at another point. This is what keeps tripping you up.

And the problem isn't just that noise can make the message incoherent. The problem is that a receiver won't act according to the message the sender sent.

That's a problem in biology, only if the action is unfavorable to survival. Mostly, it doesn't do anything measurable, and occasionally does something better than the original message. Natural selection handles the rest.

The receiver will also send back incorrect feedback because the feedback will be based on an incorrect action.

Let's look at the HbC mutation. It's "incorrect" because it's "approximately" HbB, but not quite. On the other hand, in malaria areas, it gives almost complete immunity to malaria, even while HbC homozygotes don't have the debilitating illness of HbS. Consequently, parents with HbC have a much greater chance of their offspring living long enough to reproduce, which is what evolution is about. That's why Shannon is so important. Because low genetic variability is almost certain to result in extinction of a population, perfectly transmitted genomes would doom all living things.

Because reproducing a sender's message perfectly, or near perfect enough so the receiver can act as if it were the exact message sent, is the only hope of keeping a system running.

In the case of living populations, those mutations are critical to the survival of the population. Hence Shannon's comments on population biology.

Your examples don't address the question, and worse, they represent regressions. And even worse, the example of a New Enzyme System is not irreducibly complex.

Perhaps you don't know what "irreducibly complex" means. What do you think it means?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's a problem in biology, only if the action is unfavorable to survival. Mostly, it doesn't do anything measurable, and occasionally does something better than the original message. Natural selection handles the rest.

As you learned, random changes never improve information.

Let's look at the HbC mutation. It's "incorrect" because it's "approximately" HbB, but not quite. On the other hand, in malaria areas, it gives almost complete immunity to malaria, even while HbC homozygotes don't have the debilitating illness of HbS. Consequently, parents with HbC have a much greater chance of their offspring living long enough to reproduce, which is what evolution is about.
Assuming the truth of your religion is not a rational response to a challenge.

Because low genetic variability is almost certain to result in extinction of a population, perfectly transmitted genomes would doom all living things.

Exactly backward. Low genetic variability among a kind shows high genetic integrity. Maintaining that integrity is key to survival. As organisms diversify and segregate, they become more susceptible to genetic problems.

Perhaps you don't know what "irreducibly complex" means. What do you think it means?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rather, you're evading the issue. As you now realize, Shannon's first work in information theory was in the issues of population biology and his breakthrough helped make clear how evolution proceeds in a population, giving biologists a way to measure evolutionary change.

Yep. Which is what a mutation is. Reproducing approximately a message selected at another point. This is what keeps tripping you up.

That's a problem in biology, only if the action is unfavorable to survival. Mostly, it doesn't do anything measurable, and occasionally does something better than the original message. Natural selection handles the rest.

Let's look at the HbC mutation. It's "incorrect" because it's "approximately" HbB, but not quite. On the other hand, in malaria areas, it gives almost complete immunity to malaria, even while HbC homozygotes don't have the debilitating illness of HbS. Consequently, parents with HbC have a much greater chance of their offspring living long enough to reproduce, which is what evolution is about. That's why Shannon is so important. Because low genetic variability is almost certain to result in extinction of a population, perfectly transmitted genomes would doom all living things.

In the case of living populations, those mutations are critical to the survival of the population. Hence Shannon's comments on population biology.

Perhaps you don't know what "irreducibly complex" means. What do you think it means?
Shannon's statement "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point." doesn't mean that approximate messages can be improved, but that approximate messages can be close enough to exact to work as the exact message. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Shannon.

As to irreducible complexity, I use this thumbnail definition of Behe's - a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.

That rules out your New Enzyme System. Perhaps you use a different definition.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Shannon's statement "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point." doesn't mean that approximate messages can be improved,

As you just learned, that's what a favorable mutation is. It's an approximation of the original allele, but one that works better in a specific environment. It's why Shannon's theory had its first application in biology.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand Shannon.

As to irreducible complexity, I use this thumbnail definition of Behe's - a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.

Good. So how many parts are there in that newly-evolved system? There are three:

1. the nutrient (that particular sugar to be metabolized)

2. the enzyme that evolved to utilize the nutrient and

3. the regulator that assures that the enzyme will not be produced unless the nutrient is present.

So the system requires the nutrient, the regulator, and the enzyme interacting. If any of these parts is removed, the system will cease functioning.

That rules out your New Enzyme System.

See above. It precisely fits Behe's definition. I don't think you understand Behe's definition very well. Scaffolding is a very common way for irreducible complexity to evolve.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's what a favorable mutation is. It's an approximation of the original allele, but one that works better in a specific environment.

Which can never generate useful additions to a genome.

Moreover, the evidence shows that genes react to their environment in predictable and repeatable ways, eliminating the notion that it is "random" changes at play.

As you just learned, you refuse to understand anything.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Which can never generate useful additions to a genome.

Moreover, the evidence shows that genes react to their environment in predictable and repeatable ways, eliminating the notion that it is "random" changes at play.

As you just learned, you refuse to understand anything.
It continues to be just stunning that some people support (nay, champion) the idea that mutations, which are known to be vastly destructive, can somehow be the fuel for turning a single-celled creature into a man... just amazing stupidity really.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
It continues to be just stunning that some people support (nay, champion) the idea that mutations, which are known to be vastly destructive, can somehow be the fuel for turning a single-celled creature into a man... just amazing stupidity really.

Stripe's inability to get his head around genetics and evolution is pretty much a constant. Genes don't react to environment, organisms do. But yes, organisms with particular genomes tend to be advantaged or disadvantaged in specific environments. As Darwin pointed out, and biologists have repeatedly confirmed, this is what natural selection does, and it's why evolution isn't a random process. On the other hand, Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for demonstrating that mutations happen randomly. So random mutation and natural selection will tend to determine the evolution of populations.

Tend to. Having an advantage isn't a guarantee, it's just a matter of likelihoods. And while adaptations by organisms in different but similar environments will often be analogous, they are seldom identical. So the high-altitude adaptations evolved by Andeans are not the same as those evolved by Tibetans, even though they are adaptations for the same environment.

As you learned earlier, we have a very large number of known favorable mutations. And you also learned that the vast majority of mutations do nothing measurable. A few are harmful, and a very few are useful. Natural selection is why we see the useful ones increase in a population and the harmful ones decline or disappear.
 
Top