So your an Athiest

[Whateverist]

There is a lot of chemical information in the cell. Information comes from intelligence as far as we know.

Wrong.  Information -as in statements about the way things are or how they work- come from creatures like us which use symbolic language.  But the relationships which our statements encapsulate are not dependent upon language or any form of intelligence.  The facts regarding how things stand are entirely separate from the language used to describe them.  So when you say "information" are your referring to the facts themselves, or, their spoken or written descriptions?

You're muddling up several phenomenon here.

[AAA]

I very much appreciate that someone is actually answering my questions with specifics. You sound like a busy guy, so if you don't have time to respond then that's fine, but I have some questions.
1. Point mutations (frameshift are a class of this) do not seem sufficient to actually produce new information. The only point mutation that adds new information is a frameshift, and it results if it lands in a protein coding sequence, it results in non-functional protein product due to the fact that it now changes each of the following codons (and therefore amino acids). Do you think point mutations have creative properties?
2. Transposable elements are pre-existing DNA and their insertion into DNA sequences are still not the creation of new genetic information. I still do not see how they could arise by evolutionary means. They have the inverted repeats and genes for proteins for their own removal. How does mutation lead to this type specific DNA sequence? 
3. Aren't recombination events still just the alteration of existing DNA without producing new sequences (I know that it is going to be copied later), but isn't the gene just moving from one homologue to the other?
4. Gene duplication is the most convincing. However, it makes sense to me that having an extra gene would lead to having twice the protein product of that gene, which I feel would cripple the cell's functions and be a waste of resources. If it is a waste of resources than wouldn't it get selected against before it could diverge into a new sequence?

I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone of anything, I just think intelligent design has been laughed off by the scientific community and I'm not sure why.

No problem. I have a little bit of (much-needed) "downtime" right now, so I'll try.

1) Where do you get the idea that a point mutation is not "new information"? If I change a letter in this sentence, it is new information. If I change a letter in this sentence, it is now information. Just like in the written languages, depending on which base mutates, it can have radical changes on the outcome of the protein produced, and if the mutation occurs in a gene that directs other genes (such as the "Hox" genes), the effects can be radical from a relatively small change. There is zero reason to think that an altered protein would be non-functional; in fact, we observe the opposite of this in nature, in many common proteins (such as hemoglobin), which have a wide range of functional variants. Because a point mutation may alter the amino acid coded for completely, or may insert a "stop coding" codon where Tyrosine used to be (see chart under hide tag), it can change everything.

---

---

2) Transposons interrupt other genes, or they land near other genes which influence one another by proximity (I am sure you will cover this in your genetics textbook), or they induce frame shifts, or a number of other forms of interference. Again, by definition, they alter the information and may produce "new information". Think of them as parenthetical phrases inserted into the middle of a sentence, occasionally into the middle of words. If you th(because of your predjudices)ink that this doesn't change a sentence, you're confused.

3) Yes, except that it's not always 100% accurate, pieces can come off completely, or invert, or a number of other changes. And again, any change in the "wording" of the codon sequence changes the sentence, as far as the chemistry is concerned.

4) There are places in your body where you have 30 or more copies of one gene. If TOO many copies keep being spawned, it can lead to a likelihood of cancers emerging due to problems with regulation of the site, but the short version is that your genes don't make proteins 100% of the time-- they are regulated, switched on-and-off, as needed. If you have two copies, your body can turn them on until the job is done, then turn them back off. But the point, again, is that a duplication (which eliminates almost completely the issue of a mutation damaging the first gene's survival-related job, if it's that kind of gene in the first place) allows for new information because it lets evolution "play" with the duplicate copy to do other jobs. It's how they proved Michael Behe's "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum was a bogus claim; they showed where genes had been appropriated from other functional systems in the bacterium to make that motor, etc.

I think if you keep your mind open and ask your professor good questions (after class!), you'll find most of the answers you're looking for are already fairly well-known.

Sorry I took so long to reply... the aforementioned fiancee called me in the middle of typing this to tell me about a problem with our new house in KC, and to drone on about how un-ready our kid is for his part in her church's Christmas play. (Today is dress-rehearsal.)

1. Changing one word to another is making different information, but not new. In order for evolution (molecules to man) to work, you need to actually increase the number of nucleotides, and point mutations don't do that (accept again the frameshift, which I still believe to always disrupt the protein's function). I understand that point mutations aren't always harmful, but every time I try to find examples of beneficial mutations I get something like Sickle Cell Anemia, which decreases the hemoglobin's function in normal conditions. Do you know of any beneficial mutations?

2. We have already covered transposable elements in class, and I'm still not seeing how it is a creative process. It seems to again just be altering existing information. No new nucleotides are being added (unless its a retrotransposon) Your sentence example leads to an inferior sentence after the phrase gets inserted. I have trouble accepting that random nucleotide changes could lead to a sequence for a transposable element, when the odds of getting nucleotides in a functional order seem to be unlikely unless they offer immediate selective advantages (which I don't think the transposons would). Don't you think that the transposons could be seen as a design to allow antibiotic resistance to be transferred among bacteria to keep bacterial populations from being wiped out? This seems like what you would expect from a design given the important ecological role that microbial life plays.

3. I just worry that changing the wording of a sentence is never going to improve the information content of that sentence.

4. If the duplicate genes can be regulated, then does that mean that the promoter and promoter proximal elements  of the gene are also duplicated during the event? Also I think there might be something to the idea of irreducible complexity, because if you have a protein being "played" with by evolution, then it is only going to settle into its role as part of the molecular machine if, when by doing so,  the cell has an improved chance of survival. The cell would not have an improved chance of survival unless the new protein actually had a useful function. The protein changing from one intermediate form over time would have to have a constant use to the cell to not be selected against, right?

And yes, I am trying to stay open minded and I have already talked to my professor about some questions (including the evolution of the tight regulation of the cell cycle). And that's fine, take your time

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Yes life exists in places you would not expect to find it. But extremophiles are more complex than normal bacteria, so even if you believed in evolution these would certainly not have been able to be the first that evolved. I think the most broad definition of life that could be given is something capable of taking molecules from the environment and use them to produce accurate copies of itself. I don't think I'm being narrow minded, and I want to discover new things. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I won't be a good researcher. Look at virtually every researcher before the 1800s.

Whether or not that uncited claim is true is not above debate, but the possibilities they imply for life under a broader range of conditions remain strong.

That you call them "extremophiles" is rather interesting, considering how life, when it first began 4 billion years ago, did so under similar conditions - the atmosphere and ocean was choked with volcanic activity and no oxygen. It was hardly extreme to these life forms, which made do with what they had available. That's what life does.

[AAA]

Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I won't be a good researcher. Look at virtually every researcher before the 1800s.

Not because you are a Christian. Because you don't accept the most basic biological facts due to your religious beliefs.

No I don't deny the facts, I just have a different interpretation of them. If we don't allow discussion of the scientific evidence, then we will never get closer to truth.

---

Whether or not that uncited claim is true is not above debate, but the possibilities they imply for life under a broader range of conditions remain strong.

That you call them "extremophiles" is rather interesting, considering how life, when it first began 4 billion years ago, did so under similar conditions - the atmosphere and ocean was choked with volcanic activity and no oxygen. It was hardly extreme to these life forms, which made do with what it had available. That's what life does.

Yeah, but I don't think life could form under those conditions. It obviously can live there now, but we don't know if abiogenesis could occur there. They would need to have very rigid peptidoglycan walls to prevent the degradation of any nucleotide chains that somehow formed. These complicated cell walls require enzymes to form. They would also need metabolism that allowed them to convert the toxic chemicals around them into substances that they could use, and have a way to incorporate them into themselves. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

---

I just want to point out that the beliefs of scientists are completely irrelevant to the work that they do. Sir Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist as well as a mathematician and physicist, but it's his work in the latter fields in which he made the greatest contribution. Scientists like everyone else have to show their work, or it doesn't mean a damn.

Agreed

[Redbeard The Pink]

It looks like what we're going back and forth about here is the Fine Tuning argument, and here's the problem I have with that (maybe it's already been covered): what the fuck is the Universe actually fine tuned for? If it's supposed to be fine tuned for life, then whoever did it did a piss-poor job, considering the sheer volume and mass of the Universe versus how much life there is. The Universe is producing a pitifully small amount of life, so if that's its job, it's fucking up big time.


Looking at what's actually in the Universe, it looks a lot more like it's fine tuned to produce empty space with occasional blips of plasma, rock, and/or gas. Life barely clings to the scantest of perches, while most of the Universe would kill anything instantly. Instantly.


Hell, not even our planet is finely tuned for life, especially not human life. There's so much stuff here that can kill you, much of which is completely outside the spectrum of our senses (radiation and natural gas, for example).

[AAA]

Our experience tells us that information comes from intelligence, and complex specific machines come from intelligence.

Um, no it doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole...on_paradox

I have to be honest that I understand biology and chemistry much better than physics. But I read the article, and it seems  to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that information that results from waves can be consumed by black holes. I don't really see how this goes against the premise that information only arises from intelligence. I think that maybe I should refine my statement and say that irregular/sequential information arises from intelligence. Geometrical information occurs in nature, but it isn't the same thing.

[AAA]

It looks like what we're going back and forth about here is the Fine Tuning argument, and here's the problem I have with that (maybe it's already been covered): what the fuck is the Universe actually fine tuned for? If it's supposed to be fine tuned for life, then whoever did it did a piss-poor job, considering the sheer volume and mass of the Universe versus how much life there is. The Universe is producing a pitifully small amount of life, so if that's its job, it's fucking up big time.


Looking at what's actually in the Universe, it looks a lot more like it's fine tuned to produce empty space with occasional blips of plasma, rock, and/or gas. Life barely clings to the scantest of perches, while most of the Universe would kill anything instantly. Instantly.


Hell, not even our planet is finely tuned for life, especially not human life. There's so much stuff here that can kill you, much of which is completely outside the spectrum of our senses (radiation and natural gas, for example).

It was covered a little bit. Just a thought, but maybe the majority of the universe is inhospitable to life to show us how rare and privileged our planet is. As for earth, it is extremely well suited for life. It has the appropriate magnetic field, the well sized and positioned moon, it has the proper atmospheric conditions, it is in the habitable zone, it is the right size, and we have the proper sun to support life, we have the gas giants to attract and absorb asteroids, and we have an abundance of water. These are just a few of the many parameters that need to be met for a planet to sustain life.

[Whateverist]

It was covered a little bit. Just a thought, but maybe the majority of the universe is inhospitable to life to show us how rare and privileged our planet is.

Or maybe it makes no more sense to ask this question than it does to ask why paint is only applied in some places and not the on the entire canvas in Jackson Pollack's paintings. For that matter perhaps the deity that 'created' the cosmos (that just feels so silly to write) just shits galaxies as part of its life cycle. So no intention involved. But think what you like.

As for earth, it is extremely well suited for life. It has the appropriate magnetic field, the well sized and positioned moon, it has the proper atmospheric conditions, it is in the habitable zone, it is the right size, and we have the proper sun to support life, we have the gas giants to attract and absorb asteroids, and we have an abundance of water. These are just a few of the many parameters that need to be met for a planet to sustain life.

It is like looking at a winning lotto ticket after the fact and marveling at the presence of so many winning numbers. How wonderful for us that the very planet on which our species evolved just happens to have the necessary Goldilocks qualities. Who would've thunk it?

[LastPoet]

He forget that the conditions of our planet at the time the first lifeforms arose werent suitible for us. Neither the actual conditions would be suitible for those early lifeforms.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Can you provide immunological or wider medical data to support your above claim please?

Thank you.

Cancer rates are expected to increase by 75 % by 2030, and by 90% in developed countries.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246061.php

Cancer arises when mutations in the DNA that codes for enzymes that regulate the cell cycle accumulate. When you lose the ability to regulate the cell cycle, you get cancer cells. As mutations accumulate, so do diseases. This is just one example.

Hi,

Sorry, but Correlation =/= Causation.

The above link is not evidence but a commentary. I want hard scientific data from relevent Oncological or immunology journals please to back up your claims. The above link does not support or verify the ones you made here.
Thanks.