Watch Evolution in Action

a reply to: cooperton

No new genes evolved

Get lost. I’m not going back to kindergarten to educate someone who is being wilfully stupid. Try rnaa or peter vlar, they’re kindly folk and may fall for your disingenuous piffle.

a reply to: Astyanax

Some days when I am reading ATS I wonder if there is a group of people of a certain spiritual leaning, who have a roster of "mess with the scientifically educated" along with a game plan. I mean this quite seriously. I've seen other cranks do similar things.

In this case, someone does not read the source material That someone is not you or I.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

No new genes evolved

Get lost. I’m not going back to kindergarten to educate someone who is being wilfully stupid. Try rnaa or peter vlar, they’re kindly folk and may fall for your disingenuous piffle.

Hey now!!! Leave my good name out of this. I've no time for piffle these days either. I am very much out of the piffle business. It doesn't pay well enough to compensate for the migraines one gets after answering the same questions, from the same posters who refuse to look at the same data and citations and reply with the same stock drivel as if they're reading off of the AIG or ICR websites without an independent thought of their own.

There was a time when I was blessed with some degree of patience and an honest desire to assist people with a willingness to learn or understand in finding the correct information with the express desire of them being able to think for themselves. That doesn't ever seem to happen though. I can count on 1 hand the number of people I've engaged on ATS the past 6 years, who were actually interested in learning or who at least appreciated the time and/or effort involved in dredging up the information in question. I've found that overall, it's seldom worth the effort.

Especially when there are admitted trolls on here( *cough* Raggedyman *cough*) who pretend they know what they're talking about, dmit they refuse to read replies that they have more or less demanded and are definitely going off of some BS script put together by some equally and possibly, even more so, willfully ignorant YEC proponents. I used to take pride in doing my best to provide proper citations and the best, most up to date info I knew of. But there isn't much point these days.

a reply to: peter vlar

Don't give up mr. Vlar. Most of us if not all of us value your input in these matters. Your posting Integrity is a model to The Forum.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Phantom423

I have no special knowledge in the field, just some grasp of the basics. I'm still not clear what you mean by 'random'. When I hear random, I think of Kolmogorov complexity (the length of the shortest program generating the given string). By that definition, Pi is far from random (Code Golf - Calculate 500 Digits of Pi).

I think by random, he means true randomness. The acausal, undivisible, mechanism free, algorithm free, magic that some physicists believe in. Us believers in digital physics, find such belief nonsensical it is the phlogiston, the elan vital of our times.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Xenogears

That isn't my understanding of Pi, but perhaps you can post a citation that supports your position. The decimal series may be infinite but it's really an expansion series - we don't know how to characterize "infinite" - we're just assuming it's infinite based on our current perception and calculation capability. I don't think it's possible to know that ALL possible patterns are contained somewhere in Pi. That would make it deterministic and non-random. We assume that it's random, but I don't think we know that either. How exactly would you go about proving that it contains all that information? Can you demonstrate that mathematically?

The probability that Pi contains all truths is equal to the probability that Pi contains all falsehoods. I don't think you can prove otherwise. I'd be interested to know if anyone can provide more insight - that's the of limit of my knowledge on Pi, I'm afraid.

Pi is considered to be determinstic, and the randomness, is pseudorandomness. IF it were otherwise the very digits would change from calculation to calculation. That is the nonsense of true randomness, which does not exist.

Here's the thing even if the patterns had some structure at a higher level, the mere infinity of digits allows for all information to exist within with it, as each additional digit represents a new count of the number of digits, embodying a new number, thus going from 1st, to 2nd, to 3rd, and continuing so on, you gain all the possible digital numbers.

Any possible pattern can be generated by a deterministic process, a pseudorandom process. Thus there is no basis for the faith in true randomness, it is an indivisible, mechanism free, acausal agent of change that somehow miraculously interacts with the world, that is nonsensical. You can't distinguish whether a sequence emerges from this magical process of true randomness or from a deterministic process, because a deterministic process can generate any sequence that can be, that can possibly be.

As for new genes evolving, bacterial populations have already been selected to produce select compounds or do select things by scientists. Over the generations the ability being selected has gotten better and better, it wasn't there originally at such a degree. So clearly random mutation and survival differential was enough to amplify the changes in the direction of improving ability in a new function, essentially generating a new function, a new functional gene.

a reply to: rnaa

Thanks - I probably misread the post.

a reply to: Xenogears

Thanks for the explanation - I should probably do more research into Pi - I'm really not up on the detailed math.

Regarding bacterial genes, the "newness" of genes and functional proteins is a constant bone of contention with some on this board. There's clear evidence (as I posted a few pages back) that new genes, new proteins and new functions are continually added through the evolutionary process. Their contention is that everything is built on a single model which is set in stone - that it can change by mutation, but never adds new information. The notion is ridiculous because open systems can always add information. If they bothered to read the citations which were posted, maybe a few lights would illuminate (there's always hope for the hopeless!).

a reply to: VP740

Thanks - as I said in another post, I'm not up on the detailed math of Pi - I simply wrote the first thing that came to my mind. It is an interesting subject though - another one for the puzzle factory.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

"No new genes evolved"
Get lost. I’m not going back to kindergarten to educate someone who is being wilfully stupid.

You are being rediculous. I said the surviving population already had the necessary conditions to survive the black plague and you responded "Yes, the surviving population has evolved resistance to 'black plague'. "......In this case, no new genes evolved... you even admitted it yourself, the surviving population did not evolve to become black plague resistant, they always were black plague resistant. I am sick of your childish behavior of berating anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions as you.

Try rnaa or peter vlar, they’re kindly folk and may fall for your disingenuous piffle.

Some days when I am reading ATS I wonder if there is a group of people of a certain spiritual leaning, who have a roster of "mess with the scientifically educated" along with a game plan. I mean this quite seriously. I've seen other cranks do similar things.

In this case, someone does not read the source material That someone is not you or I.

I've no time for piffle these days either. I am very much out of the piffle business.

Don't give up mr. Vlar. Most of us if not all of us value your input in these matters. Your posting Integrity is a model to The Forum.

^A group of people who will agree with anything the others say regardless of if it actual adheres to truth. The material reductionists have formed a self-righteous ideology in which anything unseen is untrue - yet scientific report tells us electromagnetism and the like are more fundamental to reality than mass/matter. I am happy I offend you by questioning your belief system and I wish you all the best of luck on the search for knowledge. I promise I am not "willfully ignorant", "Scientifically illiterate", etc, I just can clearly see that the picture presented by mainstream scientific rhetoric is incomplete, and in order to complete the picture, you have to remove old obsolete ideas that are anchoring the progress of knowledge.

a reply to: cooperton

I haven't found that paper yet, however, the papers cited in items 1 and 4 of my post are quite clear in their conclusions. Please respond to those papers as I think they are probably more relevant to the discussion.

I don't recall anything about transposons and Bonobos in those papers. What's the relevance of your statement and citation?

It is said that evolution is highly conservative, many times the changes are mostly in regulation of the existing protein machinery. Change the regulation and you can add or remove limbs, hair, intellectual capacity, eyes, ears, etc. You can make an organism die in months or live indefinitely with biological immortality.

Again for those with doubts why do we have around 50% similarity with the banana? 75% with the mouse? 99% with the bonobo? Are these the dinosaur bones in the ground the devil put there to cause us to doubt?

Keep in mind the banana could be virtually zero percent similar to us, yet still be a perfectly edible banana. Same goes for all the animals, their shared genetical similarity and in the predicted ways. E.g a rat more similar to a mice than to an ape. A bonobo being more similar to a chimp than to a banana. A banana being more similar to an apple than to a fly. This web of similarity linking animals, plants, everything, it is pure evidence of common ancestry.

As for functions, again things go from providing a bit of benefit to a lot of benefit. A protein that synthesizes some chemical, is not a crystal, it wobbles it moves, it has potential to interact with similar chemicals with just minor changes. Once interacting with another chemical, its interaction can be optimized to carry out a particular function ever more effectively. A simple duplication of a gene will allow the copy to accumulate mutations, effectively being able to interact with similar chemicals and such interactions can be optimized by further mutations.

a reply to: peter vlar
Keep up the good fight, we don't correct their post for them, we correct their posts for the readers.
Confusion, self-abasement and censorship of knowledge is a symptom of failure, the battle to retain their dogma has already failed and their belief system is doomed to fall into the trash heap like all the other failed religions.

a reply to: cooperton

^A group of people who will agree with anything the others say regardless of if it actual adheres to truth. The material reductionists have formed a self-righteous ideology in which anything unseen is untrue - yet scientific report tells us electromagnetism and the like are more fundamental to reality than mass/matter. I am happy I offend you by questioning your belief system and I wish you all the best of luck on the search for knowledge. I promise I am not "willfully ignorant", "Scientifically illiterate", etc, I just can clearly see that the picture presented by mainstream scientific rhetoric is incomplete, and in order to complete the picture, you have to remove old obsolete ideas that are anchoring the progress of knowledge.

Should we assume that you are an expert-in-waiting and should be acknowledged for your scientific ability? You never post a citation to support your position.

If anyone has to "remove old obsolete ideas", my dear fellow, it is you! Because unless you have hard evidence that you've acquired yourself or can post supporting research, how can you ask an intelligent question much less deliver an intelligent answer?

The material reductionists have formed a self-righteous ideology in which anything unseen is untrue - yet scientific report tells us electromagnetism and the like are more fundamental to reality than mass/matter.

Can you please provide an example of anyone on this board who has denied the existence of an "unseen" phenomenon?
It's incredible that you can draw such a conclusion when every opinion posted by you which denies validated research has ALWAYS been responded to with substantiating data and credible citations. It seems to me that you're the only one getting away with NEVER substantiating your position.

You could start acting like a real scientist and respond to the papers I posted. I'm happy to engage in a discussion.

Have a martini and think about it.

a reply to: cooperton

Strangely your observation is off base. Given this " group of people who will agree with anything the others say regardless of if it actual adheres to truth." Often disagree with one another on here.

Similarly you label some of us as "material reductionists" with out being able to back that up either.

Now with electromagnetism, we can detect it. Walk into a room with an NMR or MRI, and a metal plate in your body, and you will certainly "detect it". You seem to confuse "unquantifiable" with "unseen". I've also repeatedly told you, and others who make this mistake, "we are not all atheists here". Which we are not.

As for your literacy in science? Hows about you illustrate your literacy, rather than making throw away comments, misrepresentations, and avoiding papers. It would be a very nice change

Lastly, Science is the very first place where "this is an incomplete picture" is written, as the philosophy of science is "reevaluate based on the data". Thus if a hypothesis is proven to be wrong .... it gets re-evaluated. So stop building strawmen neighbour.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

"No new genes evolved"
Get lost. I’m not going back to kindergarten to educate someone who is being wilfully stupid.

You are being rediculous. I said the surviving population already had the necessary conditions to survive the black plague and you responded "Yes, the surviving population has evolved resistance to 'black plague'. "......In this case, no new genes evolved... you even admitted it yourself, the surviving population did not evolve to become black plague resistant, they always were black plague resistant. I am sick of your childish behavior of berating anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions as you.

You are trying to make the claim that no new mutation occurred. Except that if one segment of the population had a resistance to the bacillus and the rest of the population did not, then its quite obvious that at some point in time, that mutation did in fact occur. Were it an epigenetic factor, then the environmental pressures and exposure to the bacillus would have switched on the genes conferring resistance. Especially since there were several strains of plague with large differences between the plague in Northern Europe and the type of plague in Southern Europe. Since at least 1/3 of Europe's population(as much as 60%), with 40-50% perishing in just 4 years, this clearly was not a case of epigenetics.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, mutations occur on the individual level. Evolution occurs across entire populations. If some of the population had the genes conferring resistance, they survived. Those with no resistance perished. Simple enough so far right? The end result is that once everyone lacking the resistance was dead, the surviving population was filled out by an overwhelming majority of individuals WITH the resistance. They in turn bred and passed those resistance conferring genes on to their progeny. Thus, the surviving population DID have the mutation. This same scenario plays out more times than I can count. In just the last 10 millennia, eye color, skin tone and lactase persistence are just 3 prominent examples that followed a similar pattern.

Try rnaa or peter vlar, they’re kindly folk and may fall for your disingenuous piffle.

Some days when I am reading ATS I wonder if there is a group of people of a certain spiritual leaning, who have a roster of "mess with the scientifically educated" along with a game plan. I mean this quite seriously. I've seen other cranks do similar things.

In this case, someone does not read the source material That someone is not you or I.

I've no time for piffle these days either. I am very much out of the piffle business.

Don't give up mr. Vlar. Most of us if not all of us value your input in these matters. Your posting Integrity is a model to The Forum.

^A group of people who will agree with anything the others say regardless of if it actual adheres to truth.

This statement makes as much sense as claiming that all Christians share ideology with the Westboro Baptist Church because they all believe that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. Likewise, understanding that evolution is a factual biochemical process that has occurred in every biological organism since the first bits of RNA assembled billions of years ago, forming the blueprint for the future if life on Earth, doesn't mean we all agree with each other, on every detail, all of the time.

As your statement follows your quote of TzarChasm's reply to me, I don't think its too far of a stretch to assume you are pussyfooting around calling me out personally. I just don't understand how people appreciating my contributions to these threads is synonymous with some posters agreeing with anything I say regardless of whether or not it adheres to the truth. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think that statement was a cowardly, vague and veiled insinuation that I ignore truth in my posts because I'm pushing a tenuous position that I'm making up on the fly. All of my replies are firmly rooted in solid science and based on a little over 2 decades of research. As an academic in the past and a layperson who keeps up with journal subscriptions and continues to research and learn every single day.

The material reductionists have formed a self-righteous ideology in which anything unseen is untrue - yet scientific report tells us electromagnetism and the like are more fundamental to reality than mass/matter.

I am happy I offend you by questioning your belief system and I wish you all the best of luck on the search for knowledge.

You give yourself a little too much credit if you really believe you are offending anyone here. Those of us with an academic background in related fields, are very much used to having to defend and support our positions and the evidence we base those positions on. It's not like we get together once a month and create a template for a unified front to make sure we are all repeating the same story verbatim. Even amongst Anthropologists, there are many things we do not agree on. It was only 20 years ago I was openly mocked by peers for my position on Pleistocene admixture between hominids. This is because we didn't have the requisite data yet. i.e. the results from both the Human genome project and Svante Paabo's Neanderthal Genome Project. There was plenty of supporting data but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sometimes that takes time because you have to wait for technology to catch up with your ideas. A demand for conclusive and substantiative evidence isn't equitable with a closed mind or an unwillingness to entertain a new or different way of looking at the puzzle. It means you haven't supported your claims or positions satisfactorily.

I promise I am not "willfully ignorant", "Scientifically illiterate", etc,

willfully ignorant? Perhaps not, but if not, then you are suffocating and drowning in confirmation bias. If that is not truly the case, that is very definitely the impression you give. There is nothing to sway you from your chosen path. There are many here however, who follow the data with no regard to whether or not it supports what we currently understand to be true based on all of the evidence previously available. As for scientific literacy, you're not giving much to go on aside from your word. You make many statements insinuating your position is all but certified gold but support it with little in the sway of citations

I just can clearly see that the picture presented by mainstream scientific rhetoric is incomplete, and in order to complete the picture, you have to remove old obsolete ideas that are anchoring the progress of knowledge.

That sounds really purdy and all but in the process of removing obsolete ideas, you make a lot of claims but despite your insistence on citations for every bit of minutiae, there is a rather large gap in reciprocity on your end. You make a lot of claims but don't do much in the way of supporting them aside from insisting that the counterpoint to your position is incorrect.

a reply to: peter vlar

Excellent post. Anyone who has defended a dissertation understands what's required, "defend" being the operative word here - be ready to substantiate your data.

That's really all I've tried to encourage Coop to do - substantiate your position - and don't be afraid to be wrong - it happens to everyone who's genuinely looking for answers.

a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no information loss , its an amendment , the DNA is re written to ensure its survival
if you think surviving against something that will kill you is weakening yourself then im not sure you understand the difference between strength and weakness

it maintains its genetic DNA and writes in new DNA code to protect against the ciprofloxacin

i think you should read some more about cellular mitosis and how DNA is passed onto future generations in bacteria

what are the facts here , fact1: its e.coli BACTERIA and not a virus fact2 : it survives against the antibiotic , fact3: its DNA is re written and the DNA which prevents the destruction of the e./coli bacteria is preserved , fact4: the new DNA is passed onto the next generation of cells through cellular mitosis .
fact5: it has adapted to an environmental pressure , fact6: the study shows that the e.coli tried to adapt in different colonies on the same environment some survived and some did not.

This meets the model for natural selection

a reply to: Phantom423

Randomness is an area of interest to me, not just in science, but in finance. I've programmed a number of HFT algorithms which seek to defy randomness in the nanosecond range. Not an easy task. In any case, if you have knowledge in the field, please share your knowledge.

I've started another thread were we can have a more in depth discussion on randomness, and possibly information: The Arrow of Time

originally posted by: whereislogic

The digital code of DNA. - PubMed - NCBI:

The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science.

...
In 1957, Crick proposed that it is the linear sequence of the chemical rungs that forms coded instructions. In the 1960’s, that code began to be understood.

Information, whether in the form of pictures, sounds, or words, can be stored and processed in many ways. Computers, for example, do this all digitally. Living cells store and process information chemically, DNA being the key compound. DNA is passed on when cells divide and organisms reproduce—abilities that are considered defining characteristics of life.

A lot of people get confused about the word "digital" as well (including the ones who wrote the article I linked to as well as apparently those who reviewed and approved of its publication).

These people get confused as well concerning that terminology:

Many other relevant things to consider are mentioned in the video in relation to what people here have been discussing though.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Phantom423

Randomness is an area of interest to me, not just in science, but in finance. I've programmed a number of HFT algorithms which seek to defy randomness in the nanosecond range. Not an easy task. In any case, if you have knowledge in the field, please share your knowledge.

I've started another thread were we can have a more in depth discussion on randomness, and possibly information: The Arrow of Time

Thanks - will catch up with the new thread.