It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dawkins has no answer

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Hahahaha! Dawkins stumped with no answer. That's because no mutation can ever add new genes.
www.youtube.com...

Raw footage
www.youtube.com...

Just one more time again, it's too funny
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Hollywood11]




posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Dawkins Has An Answer

Here's the short version.


The total information capacity of the human genome is measured in gigabits. That of the common gut bacterium Escherichia coli is measured in megabits. We, like all other animals, are descended from an ancestor which, were it available for our study today, we'd classify as a bacterium. So perhaps, during the billions of years of evolution since that ancestor lived, the information capacity of our genome has gone up about three orders of magnitude (powers of ten) - about a thousandfold.

This is satisfyingly plausible and comforting to human dignity. Should human dignity feel wounded, then, by the fact that the crested newt, Triturus cristatus, has a genome capacity estimated at 40 gigabits, an order of magnitude larger than the human genome? No, because, in any case, most of the capacity of the genome of any animal is not used to store useful information. There are many nonfunctional pseudogenes (see below) and lots of repetitive nonsense, useful for forensic detectives but not translated into protein in the living cells.

The crested newt has a bigger "hard disc" than we have, but since the great bulk of both our hard discs is unused, we needn't feel insulted. Related species of newt have much smaller genomes. Why the Creator should have played fast and loose with the genome sizes of newts in such a capricious way is a problem that creationists might like to ponder. From an evolutionary point of view the explanation is simple (see The Selfish Gene pp 44-45 and p 275 in the Second Edition).


You can read the longer answer here. You will also learn that he wasn't stumped, he was just very angry at having discovered (from the question, of course), that yet another bunch of creationists had invaded his home and filmed him under false pretences. And after the Ben Stein episode, I think he has a right to be angry.

Edit to add: Actually, this happened many years before the Ben Stein episode, but I think he had a right to be angry anyway.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
As astyanax has outlined the idiotic argument against Dawkins, now to show the no genes from mutation claim is complete tripe:


Genetics, Vol. 179, 487-496, May 2008, Copyright © 2008
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.084491

De Novo Origination of a New Protein-Coding Gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Jing Cai*,,1, Ruoping Zhao*,1, Huifeng Jiang*, and Wen Wang*,2
* CAS–Max Planck Junior Research Group on Evolutionary Genomics, State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Kunming, Yunnan 650223, China and Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

2 Corresponding author: CAS–Max Planck Junior Research Group on Evolutionary Genomics, State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), 32 E. Jiaochang Rd., Kunming 650223, China.
E-mail: wwang@mail.kiz.ac.cn


Origination of new genes is an important mechanism generating genetic novelties during the evolution of an organism. Processes of creating new genes using preexisting genes as the raw materials are well characterized, such as exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, gene fusion, and fission. However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown. On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have identified a new de novo protein-coding gene, BSC4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The BSC4 gene has an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a 132-amino-acid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of S. cerevisiae, when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment. Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence.


And a recent study on the evolution of new functions:


Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jun 10;105(23):7899-906. Epub 2008 Jun 4.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE.

Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that "replayed" evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 x 10(12) ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 10(12) cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.


Can we coin a new term here?

I know we have one for those who gain pleasure from suffering physical pain (masochists), but is there one for people who gain pleasure from repeatedly being shown to be talking faeces?

Astyanax, you're good with words, wanna have a go?

My effort probably sucks - morochist?

[edit on 15-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

I was thinking 'coprologolagniac'.

Bit of a mouthful, though. I'd suggest 'missionary', but that position is already taken.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Hey if you want to believe that e coli and yeast can adapt to their surroundings that's all fine with me. That's a far cry from evolving, and is not evidence of bacteria evolving into men. That's not adding new information to the genome because it's still yeast and it's still e coli. Little adaptations due to sexual selection and genetic drift can't acount for one animal turning into another more complex animal.

It's just like how dogs came out of wolves, and developed new abilities and new traits, but this is always degeneration not evolution. A wolf can only become something less than itself, never something more than itself. 1 can never lapse into 2 and 2 can never lapse into 3.

Even if you think an alleged adaptation or trait developed from genetic drift and sexual selection was "beneficial" for survival in the short term, I garuntee you all those e coli and yeasts that have degenerated and made into un-natural versions of their former selves will have to be wiped out and die off eventually.

If a species mutated and it helped them in the short term, in the long run the mutation is still bad and will still cause their extinction.



[edit on 15-6-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
you don't think humans are really just very complex bacteria or a virus maybe. ask mother earth what she would call us humans. I bet she would think that we are nothing more than highly complex bacteria. seriously why do you think us humans are any different from any other organism that exists on this space rock. we are just more complex bacteria nothing more really nothing less.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Hey Hollywood !

Don't let the Atheist Tag Team steam roll you, they try to gang up on a thread and disrupt the flow of conversation.

Back on topic. I have the best version yet...





[edit on 6/15/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


The fact that you would claim that someone pausing for 11 seconds disproves there entire work is asinine. Especially considering that he was railroaded by God fearing and commandment obeying creationists that did the interview under false pretenses. Especially when he has posted the answer to that direct question (the site was posted above). Guess what, I once got to ask Jerry Falwell a question, and he took about ten seconds to answer it, and when he did he stuttered the whole time. I guess I just proved all of Christianity a hoax!



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 



The fact that you would claim that someone pausing for 11 seconds disproves there entire work is asinine


What would be even more asinine would be claiming I ever said that - when I didn't. Where's your footage of Jerry Falwell? Oh that was lie too?


And for a true timeline of events on the actual day of filming, see here (VERY INTERESTING READING):
www.tccsa.tc...
and for further reading still (it's somewhat technical and long, but underlines that the question cannot be answered in a way that supports evolutionary notions):
www.trueorigin.org...

Richard Dawkins is dumbfounded after being asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome" - quite a reasonable question that one would expect Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science - so adamant in his belief in evolution - could and would provide an answer for.

He then responds but DOES NOT answer the question that was asked of him. Why? Because he has no idea when it comes to processes that add information to the genome - the very premise of what he proclaims!! His writings claiming that he was not stumped are a desperate endeavour to cover his cowardly tracks (and on a further note, his writings don't cover any of these "information adding" processes either).

Check out the URL on the video (or above) for THE REAL EXPLANATION OF EVENTS!! And for even more insight into Dawkins' lack of enthusiasm to be interviewed by creationists, check out the belowmentioned CD. Dawkins was put to shame in a debate against creationists in 1986 at Oxford University and was left so speechless and defeated that he decided never to grant creationists with publicity time again - this policy was adopted not because he simply does not want to grant creationists with the publicity as he so cowardly insists, but because he is terrified his reputation will be tainted by his inability to front up to creationist arguments head-on (as this YOUTUBE video proves). The CD is available from the following link: www.creationontheweb.com...
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 6/15/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I like how the official time stamp on the PDF file for the "true timeline of events on the actual day of filming" is Wednesday, September 24th, 2003, and was authored by Ross Olson, who apparently has this website. Not much of agenda there, right? The interview only happened 6 years before the PDF document.

Anyway, seems that Dawkins has been showing these videos around at various discussions and people are really getting a good laugh out of them and their horrible editing.

I especially like how there are two videos of this, one with a woman asking the question and one with a man asking the question. Which one is it?

[edit on 16-6-2008 by davion]

[edit on 16-6-2008 by davion]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


It's the woman on the original. The other one is to make the pause even longer for pure satire and humor
Oh the unholy horror - how dare someone make fun of the high priest of atheism. Either way he got stuck - and his subsequent answer did not even address the question. It's well deserved the way he enjoys ridiculing others beliefs.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Astyanax; you're, supposed answer, does not resolve the question. It merely scrutinizes the inconsequentiality of the question.


Originally posted by melatonin

Genetics, Vol. 179, 487-496, May 2008, Copyright © 2008
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.084491

Origination of new genes is an important mechanism generating genetic novelties during the evolution of an organism.

the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown.

The evidence suggests that BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of S. cerevisiae, when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment.

we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence.



Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jun 10;105(23):7899-906. Epub 2008 Jun 4.
The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation.


Mel, this does indeed rebut the OP's claim that evolutionary theory has no answer to the proposed question, but it is far from proof that the answer is correct.

[edit on 6/16/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I am just surprised in that clip, he never called the person asking the question names, like he normally does. Dawkins argument, ridicule people, and leave out any answers.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Mel, this does indeed rebut the OP's claim that evolutionary theory has no answer to the proposed question, but this is far from proof that the answer is correct.


So, you essentially want to fall back on the tentative language of a scientific paper? I see this a lot when a creationist claims are challenged. The papers contain evidence to support their inferences. No science is 100%.

There are piles of articles out there on new genes and the mechanisms that underpin their production (e.g., gene duplication and divergence). I just picked two of the most recent that focus on new genes and new functions.

Two repeated specious claims from ID creationists. They dogmatically say from their super-secret bunkers that x just cannot happen (no mutations can produce new genes, lololololol!!!111!!), scientists say x appears to happen and here's the evidence.

If you think words like 'might', 'maybe', 'potentially', 'apparently' is sufficient for people like this hollywood dude to persist in their specious claims, then fine. Scientists seek and produce evidence, creationists whine.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
Mel, this does indeed rebut the OP's claim that evolutionary theory has no answer to the proposed question, but this is far from proof that the answer is correct.
The papers contain evidence to support their inferences. No science is 100%.


That's all i was looking for Mel; your points were valid. I was just making sure that others, (not necessarily yourself) realized that this was not some sort of irrefutable proof.


Originally posted by melatonin
Two repeated specious claims from ID creationists. They dogmatically say from their super-secret bunkers that x just cannot happen (no mutations can produce new genes, lololololol!!!111!!), scientists say x appears to happen and here's the evidence.


Again, we can agree that although it may be correct, it is speculative.


Originally posted by melatonin
If you think words like 'might', 'maybe', 'potentially', 'apparently' is sufficient for people like this hollywood dude to persist in their specious claims, then fine. Scientists seek and produce evidence, creationists whine.


As I said before, your post rebuts the OP’s claims. I’m not attacking you Mel, all of your posts are always excellently cited and relevant. I give credit when credit is due; I’m simply methodical when it comes to evaluating proposed and possible truths.

[edit on 6/16/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
As I said before, your post rebuts the OP’s claims. I’m not attacking you Mel, all of your posts are always excellently cited and relevant. I give credit when credit is due; I’m simply methodical when it comes to evaluating proposed and possible truths.


I didn't think you were J. I don't take people questioning my arguments personally (although many do).

It's more a case of lol'ing at seeing people depend on the humble and tentative language of scientific papers to criticise their validity (essentially thriving on doubt and uncertainty for their claims, if we add in pascal we have a full FUD, heh). A creationist makes some specious absolutist claim with no evidence, I present evidence contradicting this claim, they often fall back on the language of scientific papers. Each article tends to be a very new piece of work, each needs to be digested and replicated by others in the community. So the authors play it safe and accept that there could be methodological issues etc.

The paper is pretty cool. It assesses the production of new genes from areas of the genome that are considered non-coding. So, no gene to functional gene. That's a fairly novel finding, which will need to be consolidated. We have a tonne of evidence of duplication and divergence (i.e., one gene copied, mutates into new functional gene).

We can't really talk on the level of absolute truth and non-truth, so we have to get mucky in the realm of reasonable evidence-based positions. And it is clear that mutations forming new genes (and functions) is a very very reasonable position, well-supported by evidence (not just this one article).

So, speculation? Sounds like some sort of wild guess (i.e., mere hypothesis). I don't think that's the best way to describe the situation. It's a very reasonable inference from scientific evidence. Essentially, they tested the hypothesis and produced confirming evidence.

Still not 100% Truth(TM), of course. We leave that for theists to claim.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Gene duplication, and things like polyploidy have long been debunked as being an example of adding new genes to the genome.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


So you want to use science to debunk a scientific theory that is accepted and understood by 99.999% of biologists ('scientists')? Damn your logic is ridiculous. You can't pick and choose what you believe in - either science is atheistic ignorant evil, or it's a great methodology. You seem to be assuming both, which just points out that you are most likely not arguing through any proper scientific objection, but that you just don't like science when it shows how naive and ignorant your views are.

[snip]

Mod Edit - removed insult.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 16-6-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


very well said, i agree with you on all accounts. Perhaps “conditional” rather than “speculative” would have been a better word choice in my previous post?

Now in the interest of being impartial for the moment . . . to encompass what you just said; the notion that cautious scientific information should not be scrutinized because of its conditional diction. Should we not transfer this to the aspect that ambiguously archaic biblical writing should not be used in inquiry because of its interpretive nature? In the same respect I suppose it should not be used to champion an absolute. Or can it, because it unconditionally falls into the realm of intangibility?


[edit on 6/17/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
english is not my first language, and science english is even harder so i tend to shy from posted pages of scientific documents. but i decided to read this one. i had to break it down sentence for sentence.


Processes of creating new genes using preexisting genes as the raw materials are well characterized, such as exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, gene fusion, and fission.


so the paper is saying that the gene does one of the things above and then becomes raw material for a new gene, right?


However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown.


how this raw material becomes a gene in the next generations is largely unknown


On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have identified a new de novo protein-coding gene, BSC4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.


so in yeast, they find a new gene (BSC4)


The BSC4 gene has an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a 132-amino-acid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae.


they are noting that this gene is not found in similar species and that it is unique to this particular yeast


The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of S. cerevisiae, when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment.


this is what the gene does.


Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence.


ok so in summary. they have a version of yeast that has a gene thats different from others. so they "propose" that this gene evolved from a "previosly expressed noncoding sequence" which is smart talk for "jibberish DNA"

now, i may be missing something here, but this is not proof. they are noticing a difference between 2 separate species and then theorizing that this is because of a beneficial mutation. its supposition, not proven fact.


The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue.


this is an actual experiment.


They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations.


we see here that the e. coli adapted to its environment. i can only assume that they know there were mutations because they checked the dna.


A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population.


the e.coli adapted. they theorize that it is because of a mutation, but they are not sure.


We tested these hypotheses in experiments that "replayed" evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 x 10(12) ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 10(12) cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations.


so they retest. they discover that the change happened around 20,000th generation. still no proof is was a mutation that caused the change.


This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.


what they do know is that occurrences of mutations did increase


Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.


so they're suggesting that genes evolve depending on the history of population.

if im not mistaken, the've proved that life adapts to new settings which is old news. nothing really in terms of proof that mutations are the tool of that adaptation. at the beginning of the post you said


Originally posted by melatonin
As astyanax has outlined the idiotic argument against Dawkins, now to show the no genes from mutation claim is complete tripe:


but you didnt really show that it is, in fact, tripe. just saying




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join