Originally posted by RJHindsyes, like you and dasa are two of a kind. the kind classification doesn't exist in biology and by extension in evolution, so no new "kinds" will ever be observed.
Kind
1. a class or group having characteristics in common; sort; type: two of a kind ; what kind of creature?
Dictionary.com
2. A Natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
Example sentence using kind:
He raises hawks and other birds of that kind.
Biblical kind
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html
evolution on the other hand has been observed. it has been observed many times and every prediction made by evolution model has been accurate. no prediction has been made by the intelligent design model. ID is an obsolete model that can predict nothing but the stupidity of those who believe in it.
Originally posted by RJHindsI never said you made up the definition. I pointed out that if that is your definition, then you cannot make ridiculous claims regarding 'kinds'. Either your definition needs to be much more specific, or your previous claims regarding 'kinds' are obviously false.
That definition you quoted is from Dictionary.com. You stopped reading too soon. I did not make it up.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell the second definition is a little more specific.
I never said you made up the definition. I pointed out that if that is your definition, then you cannot make ridiculous claims regarding 'kinds'. Either your definition needs to be much more specific, or your previous claims regarding 'kinds' are obviously false.
2. A Natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
Example sentence using kind:
He raises hawks and other birds of that kind.
The last explanation is the most specific, but does not seem to be defined in any dictionary that I could find.
Biblical kind
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou are still referring to "adaptation" and calling it evolution. It is the "reproductive adaptation process' that has been observed. There is no evolution. That is why Dawkins was stumped by the question, "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that has been seen to increased the information in the genome.?
yes, like you and dasa are two of a kind. the kind classification doesn't exist in biology and by extension in evolution, so no new "kinds" will ever be observed.
evolution on the other hand has been observed. it has been observed many times and every prediction made by evolution model has been accurate. no prediction has been made by the int ...[text shortened]... D is an obsolete model that can predict nothing but the stupidity of those who believe in it.
P.S. He has never satisfactorily answered that question. Talking about the misunderstanding that modern apes or the ancestors of man by declaring they are our cousins, not our ancestors, in no way answered that question.
By "increased" she meant new information that had never been there before.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe reason he couldn't answer that question is because it was a leading question and they both knew it. It was a flame question to fan the audience. Evolution does not have to 'increase the information in the genome'.
[b]You are still referring to "adaptation" and calling it evolution. It is the "reproductive adaptation process' that has been observed. There is no evolution. That is why Dawkins was stumped by the question, "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that has been seen to increased the information in the genome.?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g[/b]
If it turns out that swapping a gene position with another gene conveys some evolutionary advantage, such as giving a bird a longer beak to get into cracks in trees to get bugs for food, there would be no increase in the information.
It would be just a matter of letters accgt say converts to agcct where there is just a positional swap, that is in no way an increase in information.
Do you know what I mean by agcct?
Here is one example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120516140014.htm
And I know this isn't evolution in the strictest sense since they can interbreed but it is just an example.
Originally posted by sonhouseBut that is "adaptation" not evolution. We are looking for completely new information that has never been in that kind of creature before that might prove the possibility of evolution.
The reason he couldn't answer that question is because it was a leading question and they both knew it. It was a flame question to fan the audience. Evolution does not have to 'increase the information in the genome'.
If it turns out that swapping a gene position with another gene conveys some evolutionary advantage, such as giving a bird a longer beak ...[text shortened]... isn't evolution in the strictest sense since they can interbreed but it is just an example.
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
But that is "adaptation" not evolution. We are looking for completely new information that has never been in that kind of creature before that might prove the possibility of evolution.
But that is "adaptation" not evolution.
not all types of ”adaptation" are Darwinian evolution ( for example, the ”adaptation" of me learning to deal with a situation ) but Darwinian evolution is always a type of ”adaptation" at least implicitly by definition if not simply by definition.
We are looking for completely new information that has never been in that kind of creature
we would call that particular new information “mutations”.
We have EVIDENCE for mutations -both for advantageous ones and disadvantageous ones.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyOkay, then present that example that shows us all that an increase of new information in the genome has occurred. I got to go now, but I will check back later.But that is "adaptation" not evolution.
not all types of ”adaptation" are Darwinian evolution ( for example, the ”adaptation" of me learning to deal with a situation ) but Darwinian evolution is always a type of ”adaptation" virtually by definition if not strictly by definition.
[quote] We are looking for completely new information that h ...[text shortened]...
we would call that particular new information “mutations”.
We have EVIDENCE of mutations.
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsHere is evidence in the form of examples for the existence of mutations at least some of which must constitute the introduction of new information into the genome:
Okay, then present that example that shows us all that an increase of new information in the genome has occurred. I got to go now, but I will check back later.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
“...
Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.
Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow's milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.
Rather than get bogged down trying to define what information is, let's just look at a few other discoveries made by biologists in recent years. For instance, it has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?
TRIMming the genome
Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.
Although such an event might seem highly unlikely, it turns out that the TRIM5-CypA protein has evolved independently in two separate groups of monkeys. In general, though, the evolution of a new gene usually involves far more than one mutation. The most common way for a new gene to evolve is for an existing gene to be duplicated. Once there are two or more copies, each can evolve in separate directions.
The duplication of genes or even entire genomes is turning out to be ubiquitous. Without a duplication of the entire genome in the ancestor of modern-day brewer's yeast, for instance, there would be no wine or beer. It is becoming clear that every one of us has extra copies of some genes, a phenomenon called copy number variation.
The evolution of more complex body plans appears to have been at least partly a result of repeated duplications of the Hox genes that play a fundamental role in embryonic development. Biologists are slowly working out how successive mutations turned a pair of protoHox genes in the simple ancestors of jellyfish and anemones into the 39 Hox genes of more complex mammals.
Newly minted
Can mutation really lead to the evolution of new species?
Yes. Several species of abalone shellfish have evolved due to mutations in the protein "key" on the surface of sperm that binds to a "lock" on the surface of eggs. This might appear impossible, but it turns out that some eggs are prepared to be penetrated by deviant sperm. The same thing can happen in fruit flies, and likely in many other groups too. In yeasts, the mutations that led to some new species forming have not only been identified, they have even been reversed.
The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
...”
Also:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16834-five-classic-examples-of-gene-evolution.html
“...Over hundreds of millions of years, a single gene can give rise not just to one new gene, but to hundreds via gene duplication. We humans have around 400 genes coding for smell receptors, for instance, all of which derive from two original genes in a very early fish living around 450 million years ago. ...”
also:
this link gives observed examples of new species evolving ( speciation )
but, sticking to the current topic:
http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html
“...2. Observed instances of new genetic material(information) arising
The following examples are scientific studies in which mutations or other natural genetic processes were observed to add new genetic information(found via talkOrigins):
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Another specific way in which information in a genome increases is by gene duplication followed by a point mutation, changing the duplicated genes. Scientists have found strong evidence that this mechanism has added to the genome of organisms in the past (Ossad and Innan 2008). A diagram of gene duplication and divergence is below.
Specific, observed examples of this occurring are explained below.
"RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur." (Zhang et al. 2002)
"Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further." (Brown et al. 1998)
(quotes above are from TalkOrigins)
Additional examples of an observed increase in information throughout the genome or chemical structure of an organism:
Chromosome duplication in Evening Primrose
As discussed above, this species was created when the number of chromosomes in an individual doubled. Thus, genetic information was increased. (De Vires, 1905)
Retrovirus protection in Old World Monkeys
Some old world monkeys developed a mutation in the protein TRIM5 that created a new protein called TRIM5-CrypA. This novel protein helped protect cells from HIV and other retroviruses. (Newman, 2008)
Observed Chromosomal fusion and the creation of a new sex chromosome
A chromosome fusion event in stickleback fish of the Japan Sea resulted in the formation of a new species.(Gilbert, 2009)
Evolution of novel genes in Fruit Flies
Begun et al., 2007 and Levine et al., 2006 observed the formation of de novo genes arise from mutations in noncoding DNA in a population of Drosophila.
A new, protein-coding gene in Yeast
Cai et al. 2008 found that a new, functional gene in a specific yeast species had evolved from a previously non-coding region.
Evolution of novel genes and function in HIV
The HIV virus has recently undergone rapid evolution which has resulted in the emergence of new genetic information; specifically, the Vpu gene. For more, see blogger Abbie Smith's post here.
A new gene arises by Gene duplication in Zebrafish
Most Zebrafish have two copies of the FGFR1 gene, involved in embryonic development. The second copy is generally functionally redundant. However, researchers recently found that in some zebrafish the second copy has since mutated and attained a new function involved in scale production(Rohner et al. 2009).
Formation of a novel X-Chromosome in Stickleback fish
While studying two extremely closely related populations of stickleback fish, scientists found a novel X-chromosome in one of the two which is unobserved in other fish populations. To the left, one can see the chromosomes of an individual male specimen with the neo-x chromosome. The new X-chromosome is marked with a green tint. The scientists then concluded that this new chromosome had been slowly driving the two populations apart into two distinct species (Kitano et al. 2009). (Image modified from source)
3. Observed instances of beneficial mutations
Note: Because this category includes most of the case examples that are in other categories, we have not duplicated most of the other examples in this section.
Beneficial mutations of yeast in a low phosphate environment
In an experiment on evolutionary change, yeast was placed in a low phosphate environment and scientists observed three beneficial mutations that helped the yeast adapt. The yeast was derived from an clonal line, which is a group of individual organisms with identical genomes. The first mutation observed affected the permease molecule, and allowed the yeast to absorb more phosphate, and thus it caused a boom in the population density. The second mutation changed the yeast's phosphatase, which became more active. Finally, the thread mutation allowed the yeast to clump together, and thus the population density grew further. (Francis & Hansche, 1972/1973) (Image Source 7)
Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
As discussed above, in this experiment the hexose transport genes of the yeast duplicated and the duplicated versions mutated, which is an obvious addition of new material to the genome of the yeast. These new genes allowed the yeast to more efficiently process glucose and thus be more likely to survive.(Brown et al., 1998)
..."
-The list of examples in that link continue on and on and you will just have to see for yourself the rest of them. The examples of mutations giving new information are endless.
Well?
Originally posted by RJHindsA little more specific? You are a joke.
[b]Well the second definition is a little more specific.
2. A Natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
Example sentence using kind:
He raises hawks and other birds of that kind.
The last explanation is the most specific, but does not seem to be defined in any dictionary that I could find.
Biblical kind
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html[/b]
This is what a scientific definition looks like;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus
A little more specific?
Originally posted by RJHindsthat's because it is douche. you can't redefine what evolution is. that you're trying to do so out of complete ignorance on the topic is pathetic. try reading a book on evolution first, then maybe, just maybe you might get some inkling of what it is.
[You are still referring to "adaptation" and calling it evolution.
It is the "reproductive adaptation process' that has been observed.
evolution of many new species has been observed.
There is no evolution.
you have been unable to demonstrate this. evolution is proven and observed.
That is why Dawkins was stumped by the question, "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that has been seen to increased the information in the genome.?
nobody has been able to stump dawkins. you, being a complete douche have fallen for another hoax video.
here is richard dawkin's rebuttal:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
i know reading is a bit difficult for you, so here is a video rebuttal:
we already know you're a douche, but you're wandering dangerously into turd sandwich territory.
P.S. He has never satisfactorily answered that question. Talking about the misunderstanding that modern apes or the ancestors of man by declaring they are our cousins, not our ancestors, in no way answered that question.
do some research before blindly believing everything you hear by people pretending to be on your side.
By "increased" she meant new information that had never been there before.
she or he? which version of the hoax video are you referring to?
Originally posted by humyIt looks like you put a lot of effort in gathering this information. It will take me some time to go over and determine if it is helpful or not. Since I am not a biological scientist and do not understand all the details completely, I will have to look for information that I can understand from a laymans point of view. I have not checked your referenced links yet either. But while I am doing that and before I get back to you. Maybe you could review the essay on the following link to see if you can also clear up the the problem by answering the questions there and possibly point out where he is going wrong.
Here is evidence in the form of examples for the existence of mutations at least some of which must constitute the introduction of new information into the genome:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
“...
Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years a ...[text shortened]... f them. The examples of mutations giving new information are endless.
Well?
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
The above link is entitled:
The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution
Has Dawkins really solved it?
Frog to a Prince 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dEyJ9g-Op4A
Frog to a Prince 2/2
&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Originally posted by RJHindsActually that one makes it clear that 'kind' is not specific therefore any specific claims are necessarily false.
Well the second definition is a little more specific.
2. A Natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
Example sentence using kind:
He raises hawks and other birds of that kind. [/b]
The last explanation is the most specific, but does not seem to be defined in any dictionary that I could find.
Biblical kind
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html
All I see there is an admission that it isn't a specific definition.