Can Manipulating Key Evolutionary Genes Cause a "Devolution"

[swansont]

Bill Nye Guy' date='

Don't worry about those logical fallacies, especially people who point them out all the time as if they're right because they pointed out a logical fallacy. As if I can point out enough logical fallacies and be right.

[/quote']

 

You miss the point here. Pointing out logical fallacies is not about your argument being right, it's about the other argument being invalid/unsupported.

 

Others' date='

If I make a phylogetic hierarchy of animals it's suppose to end up as a bush or tree right? The more complex animals of each kind tend to be higher. What's at the bottom? What's at the top? No ToE does not have a purpose or a goal. Yes I am able to identify a pattern or trend after it's happened, as stated earlier. Ofcourse, Natural selection does not have a goal or purpose, I assume that's what Swan thought I meant by trend.[/quote']

 

I didn't object to your use of "trend." If you reread what I wrote, you'll see I objected to your use of "forward."

 

 

Natural selection is chance and neccesity(survival o f) as a result the better adapted will live in given environment. Anyone's phylogetic tree has a simple to complex trend' date=' not goal or purpose. Natural selection did not have humans in mind when the first bacteria was here but now that it's happened, I surely feel more complex than a bacteria. [/quote']

 

Then why are there still bacteria? Are they unchanged (unevolved), and do we outnumber them?

 

As an overall trend from the first organism until now' date=' call me crazy, but I think evolution would have had a trend of adding information to the genome of surviving animals in order to get to where we are now.

I'm quite aware that all mutations are not deletions. IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious mutations, the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. IF there were only deletions as mutations, we wouldn't be here.[/quote']

 

If species had a trend of only deleterious mutations they wouldn't survive. But what is deleterious or neutral in one environment can be advantageous in another, and vice-versa. And again, your use of a direction is arbitrarily defined.

 

I'm also aware of the trend for EVERYTHING to be evolution. People go to the store and get groceries' date=' it's food evolution, eat all the food, it's food evoluton. Seven people go to the store at the same time, it's convergent food evolution.[/quote']

 

Strawman.

[Edtharan]

Don't worry about those logical fallacies, especially people who point them out all the time as if they're right because they pointed out a logical fallacy. As if I can point out enough logical fallacies and be right.

A logical falacy means that the arugment presented is false, it says nothing about weather you are right or wrong.

 

A lot of the problems with your posts is that they stem from incorect or outdated (ie new measurements and tests have show it to be incorrect) infomation about the subject. If you start with an incorect premise, no matter how impecable your logic, you will come to the wrong conclusions.

 

If I make a phylogetic hierarchy of animals it's suppose to end up as a bush or tree right? The more complex animals of each kind tend to be higher

Only because that is how we constructed it from our own hubris. It should be that all living organisms, no matter how complex or simple should be at the top and the organisms that they decended from are lower down on the structure (it would be better to imagine it as a pitchfork kind of structure rather than a bush or tree).

 

The reason that the organisms that we have decended from seen to be more simple is that we don't know much about them and their detains (fossils) have been distorted by time and pressure. So we can only make crude assumptions on the actual physiological shape of these creatures (they seem to be badly moddled out of clay ).

 

If you use the size of the DNA molecule as a measure of an organisms complexity and height on the Evolutionary Tree, then humans can not be at the top of that ladder. The human genome is actualy quite short compared to other organisms. Mamals are usually shorter than other organisms too, but we position them higher on the evolutionary ladder, simpley because we are mammals too. Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans, they also out number us and have a greater biomass too, so by these metrics, bacteria clearly are more superior to humans.

 

call me crazy, but I think evolution would have had a trend of adding information to the genome of surviving animals in order to get to where we are now.

Ok. You are crazy

 

An organisms genome is as big, complex, small or simple as it needs to be. DNA take time and resources to replicate, and the bigger it is the more likely that errors will occure in it. The human genome is around a metre long (IIRC) and this is in each cell of your body (count the cells and multiply the genome size by this and you will realise that we have an awful lot of DNA in our bodies). The human genome is not very large as far as genomes go.

 

Due to the problems of having a large genome, evolution will favour organisms that have a genome that is large enough, but not much larger than that.

 

Natural selection did not have humans in mind when the first bacteria was here but now that it's happened, I surely feel more complex than a bacteria.

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us,but on the whole I would say that they are of equal complexity. They are able to perform feats that we can not, live in environemnts that we can not, perform nearly all the functions that our bodies can (even make decissions with out a brain) all in a single cell. That sounds like a prety complex organism to me. We need to distribute these tasks amoung many simpiler cells, and even then they can still do things that we can't.

 

I'm also aware of the trend for EVERYTHING to be evolution.

A common and incorrect use of the term evolution. Many people use the term evolution to mean a change. Evolution, in the scientific sense has a very spoecific meaning, which these uses that you stated are incorect useages. It would be like useing the term "Programming" to mean pluging a computer in and turning it on.

[Milken]

You miss the point here. Pointing out logical fallacies is not about your argument being right, it's about the other argument being invalid/unsupported.

 

I agree my focus is more on whether it's right. Honestly didn't like your inital tone(strawman, trollish, ad hominen) and I was just encouraging Bill Nye Guy, that's all. I don't want him to feel like he's an idiot or wrong because he may have commited a logical fallacy.

 

I didn't object to your use of "trend." If you reread what I wrote' date=' you'll see I objected to your use of "forward."[/quote']

 

Guess I misunderstood this:

 

simple to complex? No' date=' not necessarily.

forward? No, that's an arbitrary distinction, and the root of your misunderstanding. Evolution has no overall "direction." That is dictated solely by the environment at the time.[/quote']

 

 

Then why are there still bacteria? Are they unchanged (unevolved)' date=' and do we outnumber them?[/quote']

 

I don't even know the point of you asking this. How is this a contradiction to what was mentioned? The survival of a species is a complex phenotypic relationship. An animal or organism's niche ofter overlaps with other animals. The root of your misunderstanding is assuming all the bacteria have died because some evolved, some bacteria died, some evolved, and as some evolved there were aleady innumerous one's unevolved.

Wow, pretty good for an ignorant lay person, who doesn't understand evolution (but honestly isn't "sold" on it). Honestly, the first question is one many Cist or IDers pose as a reason evolution never happened in the first place.

Now, if my interpretation of natural selection is wrong, then their are plently of leading evolutionist who are also inferior to your wisdom, like Ernst Mayr for one.

 

 

If species had a trend of only deleterious mutations they wouldn't survive. But what is deleterious or neutral in one environment can be advantageous in another' date=' and vice-versa. And again, your use of a direction is arbitrarily defined. [/quote']

 

You've misrepresented my arguement (I won't do it) I specifically stated it ". . . adding information to the genome of surviving animals" so survival was part of the function.

IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious mutations(taking from the genome), the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. IF there were only deletions as mutations, we wouldn't be here. The only thing for you to disagree with is the phrase "de-evolution".

 

Furthermore, read Sky's post, he's saying much of my position through Gould as far as trend and complexity. Also take keen notice to the BIG star for Biology. The same drunk man starts stumbling backward is the equivalent of an overall trend of mutational deletions, de-evolution.

 

 

Strawman.

 

Only if you can't take a joke.

[Milken]

A logical falacy means that the arugment presented is false, it says nothing about weather you are right or wrong.

 

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible.

 

A lot of the problems with your posts is that they stem from incorect or outdated (ie new measurements and tests have show it to be incorrect) infomation about the subject. If you start with an incorect premise' date=' no matter how impecable your logic, you will come to the wrong conclusions.[/quote']

 

I agree with the last sentence and I'm open to the possibility of my own lack of information.

 

Only because that is how we constructed it from our own hubris. It should be that all living organisms' date=' no matter how complex or simple should be at the top and the organisms that they decended from are lower down on the structure (it would be better to imagine it as a pitchfork kind of structure rather than a bush or tree).[/quote']

 

The tree is also a purposed function of time, so I trend is the norm.

 

The reason that the organisms that we have decended from seen to be more simple is that we don't know much about them and their detains (fossils) have been distorted by time and pressure. So we can only make crude assumptions on the actual physiological shape of these creatures (they seem to be badly moddled out of clay ).

 

We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information.

 

If you use the size of the DNA molecule as a measure of an organisms complexity and height on the Evolutionary Tree, then humans can not be at the top of that ladder. The human genome is actualy quite short compared to other organisms. Mamals are usually shorter than other organisms too, but we position them higher on the evolutionary ladder, simpley because we are mammals too. Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans, they also out number us and have a greater biomass too, so by these metrics, bacteria clearly are more superior to humans.

 

Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess.

 

Ok. You are crazy

 

I can't get upset because it's true.

 

 

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us' date='but on the whole I would say that they are of equal complexity. They are able to perform feats that we can not, live in environemnts that we can not, perform nearly all the functions that our bodies can (even make decissions with out a brain) all in a single cell. That sounds like a prety complex organism to me. We need to distribute these tasks amoung many simpiler cells, and even then they can still do things that we can't.[/quote']

 

I agree they're complex. They should write a book so we can understand them(j/k).

 

A common and incorrect use of the term evolution. Many people use the term evolution to mean a change. Evolution' date=' in the scientific sense has a very spoecific meaning, which these uses that you stated are incorect useages. It would be like useing the term "Programming" to mean pluging a computer in and turning it on.[/quote']

 

LOL, I know alot of "programmers". I don't think evolution is just change, that's a dictionary definition.

[Milken]

A logical falacy means that the arugment presented is false, it says nothing about weather you are right or wrong.

 

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible.

 

A lot of the problems with your posts is that they stem from incorect or outdated (ie new measurements and tests have show it to be incorrect) infomation about the subject. If you start with an incorect premise' date=' no matter how impecable your logic, you will come to the wrong conclusions.[/quote']

 

I agree with the last sentence and I'm open to the possibility of my own lack of information.

 

Only because that is how we constructed it from our own hubris. It should be that all living organisms' date=' no matter how complex or simple should be at the top and the organisms that they decended from are lower down on the structure (it would be better to imagine it as a pitchfork kind of structure rather than a bush or tree).[/quote']

 

The tree is also a purposed function of time, so I trend is the norm.

 

The reason that the organisms that we have decended from seen to be more simple is that we don't know much about them and their detains (fossils) have been distorted by time and pressure. So we can only make crude assumptions on the actual physiological shape of these creatures (they seem to be badly moddled out of clay ).

 

We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information.

 

If you use the size of the DNA molecule as a measure of an organisms complexity and height on the Evolutionary Tree, then humans can not be at the top of that ladder. The human genome is actualy quite short compared to other organisms. Mamals are usually shorter than other organisms too, but we position them higher on the evolutionary ladder, simpley because we are mammals too. Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans, they also out number us and have a greater biomass too, so by these metrics, bacteria clearly are more superior to humans.

 

Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess.

 

Ok. You are crazy

 

I can't get upset because it's true.

 

 

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us' date='but on the whole I would say that they are of equal complexity. They are able to perform feats that we can not, live in environemnts that we can not, perform nearly all the functions that our bodies can (even make decissions with out a brain) all in a single cell. That sounds like a prety complex organism to me. We need to distribute these tasks amoung many simpiler cells, and even then they can still do things that we can't.[/quote']

 

I agree they're complex. They should write a book so we can understand them(j/k).

 

A common and incorrect use of the term evolution. Many people use the term evolution to mean a change. Evolution' date=' in the scientific sense has a very spoecific meaning, which these uses that you stated are incorect useages. It would be like useing the term "Programming" to mean pluging a computer in and turning it on.[/quote']

 

LOL, I know alot of "programmers". I don't think evolution is just change, that's a dictionary definition.

[Milken]

A logical falacy means that the arugment presented is false, it says nothing about weather you are right or wrong.

 

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible.

 

A lot of the problems with your posts is that they stem from incorect or outdated (ie new measurements and tests have show it to be incorrect) infomation about the subject. If you start with an incorect premise' date=' no matter how impecable your logic, you will come to the wrong conclusions.[/quote']

 

I agree with the last sentence and I'm open to the possibility of my own lack of information.

 

Only because that is how we constructed it from our own hubris. It should be that all living organisms' date=' no matter how complex or simple should be at the top and the organisms that they decended from are lower down on the structure (it would be better to imagine it as a pitchfork kind of structure rather than a bush or tree).[/quote']

 

The tree is also a purposed function of time, so I trend is the norm.

 

The reason that the organisms that we have decended from seen to be more simple is that we don't know much about them and their detains (fossils) have been distorted by time and pressure. So we can only make crude assumptions on the actual physiological shape of these creatures (they seem to be badly moddled out of clay ).

 

We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information.

 

If you use the size of the DNA molecule as a measure of an organisms complexity and height on the Evolutionary Tree, then humans can not be at the top of that ladder. The human genome is actualy quite short compared to other organisms. Mamals are usually shorter than other organisms too, but we position them higher on the evolutionary ladder, simpley because we are mammals too. Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans, they also out number us and have a greater biomass too, so by these metrics, bacteria clearly are more superior to humans.

 

Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess.

 

Ok. You are crazy

 

I can't get upset because it's true.

 

 

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us' date='but on the whole I would say that they are of equal complexity. They are able to perform feats that we can not, live in environemnts that we can not, perform nearly all the functions that our bodies can (even make decissions with out a brain) all in a single cell. That sounds like a prety complex organism to me. We need to distribute these tasks amoung many simpiler cells, and even then they can still do things that we can't.[/quote']

 

I agree they're complex. They should write a book so we can understand them(j/k).

 

A common and incorrect use of the term evolution. Many people use the term evolution to mean a change. Evolution' date=' in the scientific sense has a very spoecific meaning, which these uses that you stated are incorect useages. It would be like useing the term "Programming" to mean pluging a computer in and turning it on.[/quote']

 

LOL, I know alot of "programmers". I don't think evolution is just change, that's a dictionary definition.

[swansont]

I agree my focus is more on whether it's right. Honestly didn't like your inital tone(strawman, trollish, ad hominen) and I was just encouraging Bill Nye Guy, that's all. I don't want him to feel like he's an idiot or wrong because he may have commited a logical fallacy.

 

He should feel that he's wrong, because he is, but being wrong doesn't make you an idiot. I don't see the virtue in encouraging sloppiness in making a point, when rigor is what is required. Logical fallacies undermine any argument; even if the conclusion is correct the position is invalid and easily dismissed.

 

I don't even know the point of you asking this. How is this a contradiction to what was mentioned? The survival of a species is a complex phenotypic relationship. An animal or organism's niche ofter overlaps with other animals. The root of your misunderstanding is assuming all the bacteria have died because some evolved, some bacteria died, some evolved, and as some evolved there were aleady innumerous one's unevolved.

 

If your premise that evolution goes forward, from simple to complex, we have bacteria, et. al, on the bottom and humans on the top, and one must conclude that bacteria have not evolved, since they are simple. How do you reconcile this?

 

Wow' date=' pretty good for an ignorant lay person, who doesn't understand evolution (but honestly isn't "sold" on it). Honestly, the first question is one many Cist or IDers pose as a reason evolution never happened in the first place.

[/quote']

 

When a Cist or IDer asks the question, it's usually not rhetorical. And evolution, as defined by those groups (i.e according to their strawman) hasn't taken place.

 

You've misrepresented my arguement (I won't do it) I specifically stated it ". . . adding information to the genome of surviving animals" so survival was part of the function.

IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious mutations(taking from the genome)' date=' the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. IF there were only deletions as mutations, we wouldn't be here. The only thing for you to disagree with is the phrase "de-evolution".[/quote']

 

A deleterious mutation is still an allele that is in the genome. What, exactly is "lost"? Deleterious is only definable in context of the local environment and selection pressure. It's not an absolute.

 

Furthermore' date=' read Sky's post, he's saying much of my position through Gould as far as trend and complexity. Also take keen notice to the BIG star for Biology. The same drunk man starts stumbling backward is the equivalent of an overall trend of mutational deletions, de-evolution.

[/quote']

 

Skye wasn't agreeing with your position. ("Most of life, especially the successful life, has stayed very small. If your job is to replicate, then having much less to replicate makes the task that much easier. Consequently some organisms show signs that they have been simplified, including their genome, in order to become reproductive masters.") That some life will become more complex is inevitable; since there is a minimal level of complexity for replication, there will be a random walk away from that boundary. IOW, some complexity will arise. But the bulk of life remains simple, i.e. near the lower end of the complexity scale. That is not the same as saying that evolution is from simple to complex.

 

You have assumed that the motion is supposed to be in one direction. But evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population — it doesn't give a direction. You have made an assumption about "information" in the alleles, but have not defined what that is, and your use of it seems to presuppose that "better adapted" means "more information," and that isn't the case. An organism can lose features and be better adapted (e.g. blind fish, that once had eyes, but live in environs where there is no light)

 

Only if you can't take a joke.

 

Like calling me Swanspot?

[Edtharan]

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible.

It is possible, but if you are right then there would be a better way of presenting your argument.

 

If you are trying to disprove someones elses argument and use a logical falacy then you counter argument is not likely to do what you intended it to. If you use a strawman as a counter argument then what you are realy saying is either: "I can twist your words so that they mean something else" or "I don't understand the point you are manking" (at best). Neither of these actually can be a counter argument.

 

 

The tree is also a purposed function of time, so I trend is the norm.

Yes this could be a valid view, but is not a complete view. Each point on the trunk or branch must be a vaild organism (not just the ends of the branches) and is a common ancestor to all the organisms further along the branch. Any organisms that occupy and end of a branch is either the last organism in an extinct lineage (and should be positioned further down the tree) or a comtepory/living organism that should be at the same height as any other contempory organism. This is only valid if you are using the vertical as a measure of time. Once you start using the vertical as a measure of complexity then the shape of the graph must change.

 

If you are using the height as only the measure of time, then the "Complexity at the top, simpler at the bottom" dissapears completely as there are many modern simple organisms as well as the complex contempory organisms.

 

If you use the height of the graph as a representation of complexity, then you loose a sense of time in the graph. This shows that the two aspect Complexity and Time are not related in the way that you are claiming. Your proposition that evolution is moveing towards more complex creatures is wrong.

 

You can get the illusion that it is moveing towards more complex organisms, but it is an illusion casue by our onw hubris byplasing more importance on organisms that we perceive as more complex (and in what way complex, there are many different ways that an organism can be considdered complex).

 

The is a slight trend in the graph to more complex creatures in modern times, but this is a very small trend and can be explained by a selection pressures caused by biodiversity (and it is less than this alone should give, so there must be some pressures to simplify).

 

We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote, but not in a eukaryote.

Umm, they work very similar, and we do know how most coding DNA works in a eukaryote. We have been manipulating eukaryote DNA for a few decades now. Ever heard of transgenic animals. All animals are eukaryotes and we do know how their DNA works.

 

I can't get upset because it's true.

Sorry it was ment as a joke. My appologies if you took it the wrong way.

 

I agree they're complex. They should write a book so we can understand them(j/k).

lol

 

Actually complexity can mean more than just intelegence.

 

I don't think evolution is just change, that's a dictionary definition.

But that was the way you were using the word, unless you were just making a joke.

[Milken]

He should feel that he's wrong, because he is, but being wrong doesn't make you an idiot. I don't see the virtue in encouraging sloppiness in making a point, when rigor is what is required. Logical fallacies undermine any argument; even if the conclusion is correct the position is invalid and easily dismissed.

 

I agree they, damage an arguement, guess it's more for debaters. I'd like to think I can see the validity of an arguement regardless of fallacies.

 

If your premise that evolution goes forward' date=' from simple to complex, we have bacteria, et. al, on the bottom and humans on the top, and one must conclude that bacteria have not evolved, since they are simple. How do you reconcile this? [/quote']

 

Okay, let me try again. Evolution has gone forward not so much that it goes forward as if it's directed. It APPEARS to have gone forward observing the past as a historical process. The previous post did answer the question but I'm glad you made your point clear for me. Here:

 

1)We have a trillion bacteria 2)One starts to evolve and reproduces the new type 3)The other trillion - 1 are still reproducing bacteria

 

It's crazy because I asked the same question awhile back and this is the answer I gave myself. = ) In an odd way, I don't want it to make sense.

 

 

When a Cist or IDer asks the question' date=' it's usually not rhetorical. And evolution, as defined by those groups (i.e according to their strawman) hasn't taken place. [/quote']

 

Granted it's highly probable.

 

A deleterious mutation is still an allele that is in the genome. What' date=' exactly is "lost"? Deleterious is only definable in context of the local environment and selection pressure. It's not an absolute.[/quote']

 

Okay, so a deleterious mutation is just turning it "off" because of the environment it's in?

 

Skye wasn't agreeing with your position. ("Most of life' date=' especially the successful life, has stayed very small. If your job is to replicate, then having much less to replicate makes the task that much easier. Consequently some organisms show signs that they have been simplified, including their genome, in order to become reproductive masters.[/i']") That some life will become more complex is inevitable; since there is a minimal level of complexity for replication, there will be a random walk away from that boundary. IOW, some complexity will arise. But the bulk of life remains simple, i.e. near the lower end of the complexity scale. That is not the same as saying that evolution is from simple to complex.

 

Really, he states how I feel. My arguement is not that evolution is suppose to be directed or goal oriented. It's a very subtle difference, my arguement is just a hair different.

 

You have assumed that the motion is supposed to be in one direction. But evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population — it doesn't give a direction. You have made an assumption about "information" in the alleles' date=' but have not defined what that is, and your use of it seems to presuppose that "better adapted" means "more information," and that isn't the case. An organism can lose features and be better adapted (e.g. blind fish, that once had eyes, but live in environs where there is no light)[/quote']

 

No, evolution is not a straight line process nor linear but goes in various directions and yes sometimes deletions can benefit in animal at least in theory. Not that better adapted means more information but I was under the assumption animals with more information were more "complex", which I hate to even define.

 

 

Like calling me Swanspot?

 

Accident, I rarely check for typing erros.

[Milken]

It is possible' date=' but if you are right then there would be a better way of presenting your argument.

 

If you are trying to disprove someones elses argument and use a logical falacy then you counter argument is not likely to do what you intended it to. If you use a strawman as a counter argument then what you are realy saying is either: "I can twist your words so that they mean something else" or "I don't understand the point you are manking" (at best). Neither of these actually can be a counter argument.[/quote']

 

I agree.

 

You can get the illusion that it is moveing towards more complex organisms' date=' but it is an illusion casue by our onw hubris byplasing more importance on organisms that we perceive as more complex (and in what way complex, there are many different ways that an organism can be considdered complex).[/quote']

 

An illusion is a good way to put it. I'm not saying evolution is directed or has a purpose.

 

The is a slight trend in the graph to more complex creatures in modern times' date=' but this is a very small trend and can be explained by a selection pressures caused by biodiversity (and it is less than this alone should give, so there must be some pressures to simplify).[/quote']

 

Yes, complex, like death, if I may borrow, is a nebulous concept. Maybe specified complexity like IDers use is better.

 

Umm' date=' they work very similar, and we do know how most coding DNA works in a eukaryote. We have been manipulating eukaryote DNA for a few decades now. Ever heard of transgenic animals. All animals are eukaryotes and we do know how their DNA works.[/quote']

 

Well I guess this is more recent then at a biochemical level I knew the difference between what we knew for the pro and euk was a pretty good distance. Ofcourse, I've NEVER heard of transgenic animals?

 

Sorry it was ment as a joke. My appologies if you took it the wrong way.

 

No' date=' I thought it was a joke but even if it wasn't, IT'S TRUE! There isn't much I take personally, especially online.

 

Actually complexity can mean more than just intelegence.

 

A little sarcasm. .

 

But that was the way you were using the word' date=' unless you were just making a joke.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I was joking. Maybe my perspective is slanted but as you learn about evolution it comes across as a subliminal marketing strategy, every time the oppurtunity arises, a nuiance is called some kind of evolution or selection. For example, this microevolution, now macroevolution, here's an example of regular evolution, but wait we have co-evolution, be patient, here's convergent evolution, mosaic evolution, phyletic evolution, and the all important, speciational evoltion, and that's about it. Thus, this is the power and facts of evolution. Goodness!

[Edtharan]

For example, this microevolution, now macroevolution, here's an example of regular evolution, but wait we have co-evolution, be patient, here's convergent evolution, mosaic evolution, phyletic evolution, and the all important, speciational evoltion, and that's about it. Thus, this is the power and facts of evolution. Goodness!

All these are just used to be more specific about what facet of evolution you are talking about or a particular conclusion of evolutionary theory.

 

If you look at any technical field then you will find lots of examples like this where they use particular jargon to indicate certain neuances of a broarder concept. That is all these are, technical jargon for specific facets of evolutionary theory.

 

An illusion is a good way to put it. I'm not saying evolution is directed or has a purpose.

Actually you did say (or at least indicated) that it did have a direction, that is that evolution increases complexity.

 

Ofcourse, I've NEVER heard of transgenic animals?

There have been many examples of transgenic animals. They have moved genes from one organism into another organism. Once common gene that has been inserted into other animals (a transgene) is the Fluresent Gene found in many gellyfish. It has been inserted into mice, bacteria (yes this is a a eukaryote gene in a prokaryote and it still works as intended without change), and other organisms. One of the first transgenic oprganisms was a bacteria engineered to produce human insulin (eukaryote to prokaryote again). If you know anyone with diabeties they rely on this transgenic organism to provide their medication (insulin).

 

Yes, complex, like death, if I may borrow, is a nebulous concept. Maybe specified complexity like IDers use is better.

If you use the IDers concept of complexity then I would say a definite No.

 

No, I thought it was a joke but even if it wasn't, IT'S TRUE!

I think it would also apply to me as well .

 

In an odd way, I don't want it to make sense.

And that is why it doesn't make sense to you (also it is not a good idea to wnat it to make sense to you as it will likely make you blind to any problems that it has). Either wanting it to make sense or not wanting it to make sense is closing your mind to what could be the truth. Keep an open mind and allow your self to see it from the other perspective. This is healthy.

[swansont]

Okay, let me try again. Evolution has gone forward not so much that it goes forward as if it's directed. It APPEARS to have gone forward observing the past as a historical process.

 

That requires that you define forward as whatever is alive at the time, and then it's a tautology. It's an artificial distinction.

 

No' date=' evolution is not a straight line process nor linear but goes in various directions and yes sometimes deletions can benefit in animal at least in theory. Not that better adapted means more information but I was under the assumption animals with more information were more "complex", which I hate to even define.

[/quote']

 

You need to explain what a "deletion" is, as well as "information," which you have not yet done.

[Steph]

Is the chromosone not the package that contains the dna and all species roughly have 30,000 dna "strings"

 

no. all species do not even have the same numbers of base pairs.

 

You need to explain what a "deletion" is, as well as "information," which you have not yet done.

 

deletion... the physical removal of a base or base pair... its pretty straightforward.

 

yes this is a a eukaryote gene in a prokaryote and it still works as intended without change

 

not true. The transcriptional machinery is different in prokes. where you have large amounts of junk DNA that needs to be edited out in eukes, prokes have genes nearly as is in their genome.

 

Umm, they work very similar, and we do know how most coding DNA works in a eukaryote. We have been manipulating eukaryote DNA for a few decades now. Ever heard of transgenic animals. All animals are eukaryotes and we do know how their DNA works.

 

no we don't. we know the broad lines, but not the details. if we knew the details, we'd live in a very happy world. even with prokaryotes, we are far from knowing everything.

 

Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans

no

 

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us

How?

 

 

Just putting some things straight.

[Edtharan]

not true. The transcriptional machinery is different in prokes. where you have large amounts of junk DNA that needs to be edited out in eukes, prokes have genes nearly as is in their genome.

yet they have move genes from one to the other.

 

no we don't. we know the broad lines, but not the details. if we knew the details, we'd live in a very happy world. even with prokaryotes, we are far from knowing everything.

Yes the knowledge of how the genes work is not complete. But we can Identify sequences and the proteins that they produce. So the codeing sections can be identified and the resulting protine can be predicted and identified. This is just one small part of the overall picture, but an important one.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edtharan

Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans

no

I stand corrected.

[Skye]

How?

 

 

Just putting some things straight.

You could argue that some are more complex in terms of their metabolism, I suppose.

[Milken]

Actually you did say (or at least indicated) that it did have a direction' date=' that is that evolution increases complexity.[/quote']

 

I said trend, for me it's an observation after the fact. Yes it had a direction because we can look back and observe it, but the direction was not goal oriented. Guess I did not explain make the distinction clear.

 

There have been many examples of transgenic animals. They have moved genes from one organism into another organism. Once common gene that has been inserted into other animals (a transgene) is the Fluresent Gene found in many gellyfish. It has been inserted into mice' date=' bacteria (yes this is a a eukaryote gene in a prokaryote and it still works as intended without change), and other organisms. One of the first transgenic oprganisms was a bacteria engineered to produce human insulin (eukaryote to prokaryote again). If you know anyone with diabeties they rely on this transgenic organism to provide their medication (insulin).

 

 

If you use the IDers concept of complexity then I would say a definite No.

 

In that case you'd also be aruging there are more "irreducible complexities" in bacteria than in humans.

 

And that is why it doesn't make sense to you (also it is not a good idea to wnat it to make sense to you as it will likely make you blind to any problems that it has). Either wanting it to make sense or not wanting it to make sense is closing your mind to what could be the truth. Keep an open mind and allow your self to see it from the other perspective. This is healthy.

 

The explaination made sense to me but because I'm more of a critic of evolution, in the back of my mind, I want someone to disagree with my logic.

[Milken]

That requires that you define forward as whatever is alive at the time' date=' and then it's a tautology. It's an artificial distinction.

 

 

 

You need to explain what a "deletion" is, as well as "information," which you have not yet done.[/quote']

 

Forward, new organisms/species evolved. As these new species evolved, it's due to natural selection, which is suppose to make a species better adapted, forward. I guess.

 

I'm shocked you asked me the later, see Steph's above.

 

Tautology, is a trademark of evolutionary thought.

See some homology - similarity due to common descent

and natural selection - when survival of the fittest is the ones who survived

Do you believe in the TofE?

[Skye]

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious mutations(taking from the genome), the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. IF there were only deletions as mutations, we wouldn't be here. The only thing for you to disagree with is the phrase "de-evolution".

Just to be clear, deleterious basically means bad. So a nucleotide substitution in the gene BRCA1 could be deleterious because it could predispose the person to breast cancer. Deleterious is not related to deletion.

 

Furthermore, read Sky's post, he's saying much of my position through Gould as far as trend and complexity. Also take keen notice to the BIG star for Biology. The same drunk man starts stumbling backward is the equivalent of an overall trend of mutational deletions, de-evolution.

Don't confuse the analogy, the man's direction of walking is him moving forward in time. If he stumbles backwards he's travelling backwards in time.

[swansont]

deletion... the physical removal of a base or base pair... its pretty straightforward.

 

 

That doesn't seem to be the way that Milken is using it.

[swansont]

Forward' date=' new organisms/species evolved. As these new species evolved, it's due to natural selection, which is suppose to make a species better adapted, forward. I guess.

 

I'm shocked you asked me the later, see Steph's above.

 

Tautology, is a trademark of evolutionary thought.

See some homology - similarity due to common descent

and natural selection - when survival of the fittest is the ones who survived

Do you believe in the TofE?[/quote']

 

"Better adapted" is not the same as "forward." A trait can be an advantage, a disadvantage or neither; it all depends on the circumstances of the environment. If you use it in the sense of "whichever way I move is forward" then it's true (and trivially so) but that's a strange, and not particularly useful, definition of "forward."

 

The reason I asked is that you seem to be using "deletion" to be synonymous with "mutation." A trait can change without a deletion. And you still haven't defined "information."

 

"Survival of the fittest" is a very rough description and really not a good way to paraphrase "heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success." It's not a tautology.

[Edtharan]

Forward, new organisms/species evolved. As these new species evolved, it's due to natural selection, which is suppose to make a species better adapted, forward. I guess.

Ok. yes organisms will become better adapted to a niche in an ecosystem. But here is the catch. That organism is part of that ecosystem. This gives a feedback that changes the definition of fittness, this can mean that the organism now has to evolve a different set of traits to be better addapted to the niche, and so on...

 

It is theis feedback loop that keeps changeing what is defined as the "most fit" that makes any notion of "Forwards" nonsense when dealing with evolution.

 

Just to be clear, deleterious basically means bad. So a nucleotide substitution in the gene BRCA1 could be deleterious because it could predispose the person to breast cancer. Deleterious is not related to deletion.

Yes. If you use the term deleterious to mean a bad mutation, then most mutations are deleterious. This makes that particualr organism with that mutation less likely to survive. But this then means that any organism that does not have that mutation is more fitt, this is therefor essential for evolution to take place. And is a good argument that evolution works the way we think it does.

[Milken]

"Better adapted" is not the same as "forward." A trait can be an advantage, a disadvantage or neither; it all depends on the circumstances of the environment. If you use it in the sense of "whichever way I move is forward" then it's true (and trivially so) but that's a strange, and not particularly useful, definition of "forward."

 

Better adapted is essentially what I'm calling forward.

 

 

"Survival of the fittest" is a very rough description and really not a good way to paraphrase "heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success." It's not a tautology.

 

I don't think it is now, but it was, same with homology.

[Edtharan]

Better adapted is essentially what I'm calling forward.

Ok. What if the organism evolved to suit an environment better. This is what you call forward. What if there was a change in the environment that gave an advantage, not to the new trait, but to the old trait, would then forwards, mean backwards? Or are oth forwards?

 

This is where the analogy of "better suited mean forward" breaks down. The environment changes (inpart due to the existance of the organism in question) and what was once considdered "forwards" could now be considdered unfit.

 

The use of the word "Forwards", promotes the illusion of "directed evolution". DE does not exist. It is an incorect assumption made about evolution, and is what you are also doing.

[CharonY]

Precisely. I suppose this misconception is partly derived from the image of evolutionary trees. They only depict the history of species and not a trend of evolution towards anything.

Furthermore, natural selection alone does not likely lead to speciation. Spatial separation for instance, maybe together with genetic drift (see allopatric speciation) are far more likely to contribute to this.

If for instance the whole population adapts to a given environment there won't be a speciation event as per definitionem no new species arises.

[FreeThinker]

Milken,

 

Imagine a group of animals living in an environment where large horns are favored by natural selection. If the conditions change so smaller horns give an advantage to that animal, smaller horns will be favored by natural selection. So we have gone from animals with large horns to animals with small horns. Would you consider this 'devolution" or 'progression"?