Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by anthson
I'd also like to know what you think about my response to Vaer on natural selection and the loss of genetic information over time.

From talkorigins (I suggest you look at it before you post another question, Anthson, just to make sure I can't do another copy and paste )

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* 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)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* 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)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by anthson
Can you explain one helpful mutation you've observed? I don't know of any, but I admit I don't travel around the world studying mutants. I'd like to know what you know, though. So far, all the mutations I've seen involve a harmful scrambling of genetic information -- not any helpful additions of new info. Still, if you're willing to point something out, I am more than willing to read up on it.

Asgoth already posted an answer to this, but I'll just back him up with some references (again, this is from talkorigins - check it out!).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by anthson
What IS disputable is how far it can go, Malacasta. That's perfectly logical and scientific to dispute seeing as no one has ever observed it going beyond a certain point. Even some staunch, millions-of-years evolutionists will agree there is a line. I have read several of them claim the common house fly has evolved as far as it can go. I'm sure others might disagree, but a lot of scientific minds agree there is a line somewhere. I'm disputing the line. I'm challenging your logic that because we've seen evolution go five miles, that it's capable of going five billion more. Just because you see a guy driving south on I 35 for five miles doesn't automatically prove the dude's a Canadian heading for Mexico. Does my illustration help you see where I stand? By and large, I don't dispute your scientific findings. It's the conclusions I take issue with.

Anthson, I confess I really don't know what you're asking me.

"What IS disputable is how far it can go" - I'm ignorant of this debate, who is disputing it and how are they disputing it?
"No one has ever observed it going beyond a certain point" - What does this mean? That humans haven't got wings to fly yet? That they're not green with purple spots? What is this certain point that evolution hasn't got beyond and why does it matter?
"The common house fly has evolved as far as it can go" - I'd like to see these arguments. What do you mean by evolving as far as it can go? Are you saying that house fly DNA will never mutate again?
"Just because we've seen evolution go five miles, that it's capable of going five billion more" - If DNA suddenly stopped mutating, that would be fascinating. I'm sure genetic scientists would look into why it happened. It hasn't happened yet though and there's no particular reason to suppose it will.
"I don't dispute your scientific findings. It's the conclusions I take issue with." - I don't understand you at all here and I don't know what to say. Which scientific findings don't you dispute?

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Malacasta
... The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

That's the definition of natural selection. However, natural selection (that is, pure and simple, no external input - deliberate breeding by an outside master is not natural selection) has a fairly short-term view. A mutation will be abolished if it kills the organism (or prevents it from breeding), and a mutation that tends to make life harder for its organism will tend to be unfavoured. However, in humans, a LOT of unfavourable variations (I believe they're all derived from mutations, but I'll say variations for safety) are surviving. Nobody's going around saying "This guy shouldn't be allowed to have children" or the more extreme "This guy has a genetic problem, kill him now". There's a Godwinning in the wings here, but suffice it to say that we, as a culture, are deliberately preventing natural selection from destroying the weak. People are of greater value than peas, so people survive but peas get deliberately bred and refined.

[anthson]

Originally posted by asgoth
While it can be argued if it is "helpful" or not, there is proof of a helpful evolution. Simply take the growing strings of bacteria which have developed immunities to specific antibiotica. This is a clear example where the evolution theory may be proven. Similar immunities are evolving in insects, which grow to become resistant to specific chemicals used to keep them from humanities precious crops.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, here, but I need to state for the record again I do believe in micro-evolution. The difference in opinion is how far the line goes. I'm sure roaches can evolve beyond certain poisons. I don't see them ever turning into a cucumber or a sperm whale, though. That would require new genetic information and, to be honest, I can't see where the roach would get that info from. There's just no scientific explanation for how it would come about.

Originally posted by asgoth
On the other hand, have you seen any single proof of a changed "design" to appear ? There is plenty of proof that different "designs" did exist in the past, while the current "designs" as far as animals / plants are concerned ?

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

Originally posted by asgoth
the cycles in which evolution operates are past the scope of any human to observe.

The cycle in which evolution supposedly operates. Again, no one's observed this (you said so, yourself), so we're just guessing. In some cases, we're imagining. Scientists like to dig around in the dirt and date layers and rocks, and not that anything's wrong with digging, but I don't see how it's illogical to come to a different conclusion given the same data. To be quite frank, if you find something in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids that were different than it was. All you know is it died.[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by asgoth
For creationism, no such example exists, and i have severe doubts as to if we will ever be able to find any proof of this

As I said before, there are plenty of creatures that have biology where the finished product is the only viable, living organism. Any steps upward on the ladder of evolution toward that organism would've yielded organisms that could not survive. The Bombardier Beetle was one example. Another is the transition from typical primate feet to human feet. There simply isn't a reason for natural selection to move from one to the other, and even if it did, you'd have a foot for millions of years that was neither good for walking, nor climbing. The finished product in either case is the only viable biology.

Originally posted by asgoth
This aside, mutations do come into play as they will add information to the gene pool, even if the actual mutation itself has no direct effect on a species.

Again, I'm no mutant studies professor, but I have looked and I can't find any evidence of a mutation that does more than scramble currently-available genetic code. I cannot find one documented instance of a helpful mutation that adds new genetic information (or even just a helpful mutation, for that matter). Not that if I found it, the evidence would disprove anything of significance, but it would be nice to know for sure if science is guessing on the matter or really has studied something observable.

[Malacasta]

Rosuav, I think the point you raise is an interesting one and it's something I've always wanted to investigate a little more. At least one political tendency I know of argues that there is no longer a selecting pressure on humans. I think the question is very complicated and very political - the situation in the West is quite different to that in China or Africa for example.

I don't see that the issue has a lot of relevance to this thread though since we're talking about origins.

[Kravenar]

While I read much of this thread I'll have to confess to being too lazy to read ALL the juicy bits, but thought I'd throw my own two cents in anyhow.

Originally posted by anthson
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, here, but I need to state for the record again I do believe in micro-evolution. The difference in opinion is how far the line goes. I'm sure roaches can evolve beyond certain poisons. I don't see them ever turning into a cucumber or a sperm whale, though. That would require new genetic information and, to be honest, I can't see where the roach would get that info from. There's just no scientific explanation for how it would come about.

The theory of evolution supports such complex changes being decided from very early stages, ie. back in the single cell or small colony stages. To try to use such an argument of cucumbers turning into whales only displays either a) arrogance or b) ignorance.
(BTW... feed cucumber to whale it will become whale soon enough- or at least part of it will)

While we're at it...

Lets ASSUME that Creation is true....
If I remember Sunday School correctly.... didn't God create Adam and Eve.. I don't recall there being anyone else... and aren't we all decended from them?

If this is the case how do you account for vast difference in appearance and genetic attributes of the various races?
Each race has various strengths and weaknesses, often highlighted at things such as Olympics..... small statured asians excel in gymnastics, african americans at sprinting (damned fast twitch muscle fibres), african races do well at long distance and marathon etc etc. You know the trends... they are hard to miss.

My point being that if evolution of "complex" species did not occur these differences would not be apparent - unless of course you are suggesting that this is not evolution. Perhaps God did only create two "humans" and the rest are just intelligent animals that were created along with the dogs and the fishes - so which races are you gonna slag off as animals and who is pure?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by anthson
The Bombardier Beetle was one example.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

Claim CB310:
The bombardier beetle cannot be explained by evolution. It must have been designed.
Source:
AIG, 1990. The amazing bombardier beetle. Creation Ex Nihilo 12(1): 29.
Gish, Duane T., 1977. Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. El Cajon, CA: Master Book, pp. 51-55.
Response:

1. This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:
1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.

2. Bombardier beetles illustrate other aspects of life that look undesigned:
* With design, we expect similar forms to be created for similar functions and different forms for different functions (Morris 1974, 70). However, what we see is different forms for similar functions. Many ground beetles have very similar habits and habitats as centipedes, but their forms differ greatly. Different groups of bombardier beetles use very different mechanisms for the same function of aiming their spray (Eisner 1958; Eisner and Aneshansley 1982).
* Some forms have no function. Some bombardier beetles have vestigial flight wings (Erwin 1970, 46,55,91,114-115,119).
* If bombardier beetles have a purpose, then death is an integral part of it, since the beetles are predators (some, as larvae, are parasitoids, gradually eating pupae of other beetles [Erwin 1967]), and their spray is a defense against other predators. Many creationists claim that death was not part of God's design.

Links:
Isaak, Mark, 1997. Bombardier beetles and the argument of design. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by anthson
Another is the transition from typical primate feet to human feet. There simply isn't a reason for natural selection to move from one to the other, and even if it did, you'd have a foot for millions of years that was neither good for walking, nor climbing. The finished product in either case is the only viable biology.

Sorry, are you saying here that there are no circumstances under which it might be better for an animal to be able to walk than climb?
In any case, there are transitional feet in the fossil record. Check them out!

Here's a starting point for you:
Harcourt-Smith, W. E. H. & Aiello, L. C. (2004)
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion.
Journal of Anatomy 204 (5), 403-416.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1571304

[asgoth]

Originally posted by anthson
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, here, but I need to state for the record again I do believe in micro-evolution. The difference in opinion is how far the line goes. I'm sure roaches can evolve beyond certain poisons. I don't see them ever turning into a cucumber or a sperm whale, though. That would require new genetic information and, to be honest, I can't see where the roach would get that info from. There's just no scientific explanation for how it would come about.

You are right. A Roach will not "evolve" into a whale. Not every being can evolve into every other being, that never was how evolution works. You are looking at already evolved species, at that point.

The fact that you can find thousands of examples for species that cannot be imagined to have evolved from certain other species does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. It never claims that anything can evolve into anything, and it does not claim that a whale has evolved from a roach. So, that point is void, in my eyes.

Originally posted by anthson
The cycle in which evolution supposedly operates. Again, no one's observed this (you said so, yourself), so we're just guessing. In some cases, we're imagining. Scientists like to dig around in the dirt and date layers and rocks, and not that anything's wrong with digging, but I don't see how it's illogical to come to a different conclusion given the same data. To be quite frank, if you find something in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids that were different than it was. All you know is it died.

First off, if you like to include semantic details in the discussion, i should also put the word "supposedly" and "assumed" and so forth for every reference of creationism. I think we are both mature enough to leave that out.

Now, to answer your critizism. Yes, we do not know if any direct offspring came from any single find... But : If you find a series of species which differ only marginally in their basic genetic and physiological setup (and yes, that can be deduced from the fossiles which are found), the string of finds does give credit to the theory that this species evolved along a certain path.

Such "strings" of fossile finds exist, and are being used as evidence towards evolution. They also pretty much invalidate intelligent design, as it is not intelligent to minutely modify a given species to show historical signs of evolving.

Originally posted by anthson
As I said before, there are plenty of creatures that have biology where the finished product is the only viable, living organism. Any steps upward on the ladder of evolution toward that organism would've yielded organisms that could not survive.

Yes, you have said that before, but all your examples have been insufficient to prove this fact.

Originally posted by anthson
The Bombardier Beetle was one example.

I refer to Malacastas post above.

Originally posted by anthson
Another is the transition from typical primate feet to human feet. There simply isn't a reason for natural selection to move from one to the other, and even if it did, you'd have a foot for millions of years that was neither good for walking, nor climbing. The finished product in either case is the only viable biology.

That is wrong, actually.

a) Looking at the human foot today and the primate foot today is invalid. They evolved from a common ancestor, there never was an evolution going from one to the other.

b) looking at them, and tracing the possible steps backwards show that there indeed is a previous foot, which has a balance between its usefulness for walking and climbing, but could do with improvements on both sides.

c) these improvements is exactly what led to human feet and primate feet.

Originally posted by anthson

Originally posted by asgoth
On the other hand, have you seen any single proof of a changed "design" to appear ? There is plenty of proof that different "designs" did exist in the past, while the current "designs" as far as animals / plants are concerned ?

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

Plain and simple.. Looking back, there is proof that there were dinosaurs. There were ferns which nowadays no longer exist. (what i called historic designs). Now, in order to prove intelligent design, it would be necessary to find one "design" (creature, plant, insect, ect.) which adheres to the following 3 rules.
1) It is new (no other like it may have existed in the near past)
2) It could not have evolved (no species may exist in the near past from which this new "design" may have evolved following the laws of evolution.)
3) It must have a significant advantage over existing comparable species (else it would be design, but hardly intelligent)

Is there any single piece of evidence for this ?

A.