The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[ironduck]

El Mac, regarding the mtDNA thing and women having children later.. women don't actually have children later on average now than they used to, they just used to start having children sooner (and they had more of them). I just read that the average age for women having children here 100 years ago was 31. Today the average age is 30.

 

[Che Guava]

Yes, of course, but devolution certainly does. Or whatever the term is that allows my poodle to have descended from a wolf (there does not seem to be much 'information gain' in that type of instance)

There seems to be something too funnny about playing devil's advocat in a creationist thread....

Your poodle is the result of countless years of careful manipulated breeding. There is definitely lots of information lost (or at least not used), but certainly lots of gains, too. Unless Noah had a bear breeding program, I don't see that happening. Besides, even with our most careful breeding programs, I don't think we've ever created a whole new species, just useful variations of what we already had....

 

[ironduck]

Heck, when we try to breed different members (species) of equus such as the domestic horse and the zebra the result ends up being sterile.

 

[El_Machinae]

But a polar bear is certainly not fully a new 'species' (though I'm vague on the term) because they can breed with grizzlies.

I don't think the poodle has 'information gain', does it? Much like lactose tolerance in humans (which is actually one of our genes that 'turn off ' tolerance mutating away), I'd assume.

Plus, Noah doesn't need to breed polar bears, Natural Selection can do that! I mean, we ALL know that animals can be 'devolved', because we have housepets.

 

[El_Machinae]

Heck, when we try to breed different members of equus such as the domestic horse and the zebra the result ends up being sterile.

You're just jealous because all the other horses mock you for liking zebras.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I don't think the poodle has 'information gain', does it? Much like lactose tolerance in humans (which is actually one of our genes that 'turn off ' tolerance mutating away), I'd assume.

I'd like to remind everyone that absent a definition of information, this sort of claims are meaningless.

I mean, we ALL know that animals can be 'devolved', because we have housepets.

This is supposed to mean ... ?

 

[Che Guava]

Heck, when we try to breed different members (species) of equus such as the domestic horse and the zebra the result ends up being sterile.

Exactly: that is the definition of species. Member of the same genus (even family sometimes) can interbreed and produce ofspring, but those offspring will be sterile. Only two member of the same species can produce viable offspring.

But a polar bear is certainly not fully a new 'species' (though I'm vague on the term) because they can breed with grizzlies..

Nope! Polar bear is Ursus maritimus, and the grizzly is U. arctos. They can mate and create a hybrid, but that kid isn't having anybabies...

I don't think the poodle has 'information gain', does it? Much like lactose tolerance in humans (which is actually one of our genes that 'turn off ' tolerance mutating away), I'd assume.

Not so much information gain as information 'enhancement'. All species have thousands of genes that they don't use, and the number of possible combinaitons is mind-blowing...

Plus, Noah doesn't need to breed polar bears, Natural Selection can do that! I mean, we ALL know that animals can be 'devolved', because we have housepets

Those housepets didn't happen by accident! There was a lot of careful breeding and selection that went into dogs, cats, horses, cows. Beleive me, natural selection takes a lot more time than that, especially if it goes all the way to a divergence of a species.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Nope! Polar bear is Ursus maritimus, and the grizzly is U. arctos. They can mate and create a hybrid, but that kid isn't having anybabies...

That's actually not true. Grizzlies and polar bears are not considered different species because they cannot produce fertile offspring - they can - but because they're in normal circumstances reproductively isolated from one another.

Linky

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd like to remind everyone that absent a definition of information, this sort of claims are meaningless.

Information = DNA that does something (activates a gene, shuts off a gene, provides bases for transciption, etc.), or sometimes DNA
Information loss = DNA that 'did something' being shut off via mutation, or DNA being deleted out.
Information gain = DNA that 'did nothing' turning into DNA that 'does something', or adding new DNA.

Does that work for everyone?

So, take the lactose mutation. Humans used to have a gene that shut off lactase production in their youth. It was an active gene that made us intolerant. Then, this gene mutated and thus our lactase does not get shut off as quickly, and so remain lactose tolerant.

There was an evolutionary advantage to shutting off this gene (allows us to use animal milk for calories), but there is information loss, because 'producing DNA' is turned into 'non-producing DNA'.

This is supposed to mean ... ?

You can start with a more 'full' genetic database, and weed out genes in order to produce another 'feel' for the animal. Wolves -> poodles. Uberbear -> polar bear.

 

[warpus]

Yes, of course, but devolution certainly does. Or whatever the term is that allows my poodle to have descended from a wolf (there does not seem to be much 'information gain' in that type of instance)

That's evolution - not devolution There is no such thing.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I don't know what the hell to call it.

There must be a difference between information 'gain' and information 'loss'

 

[The Last Conformist]

Information = DNA that does something (activates a gene, shuts off a gene, provides bases for transciption, etc.), or sometimes DNA
Information loss = DNA that 'did something' being shut off via mutation, or DNA being deleted out.
Information gain = DNA that 'did nothing' turning into DNA that 'does something', or adding new DNA.

Does that work for everyone?

Presumably only new functional DNA would count as "information gain".

Well, as you probably realize, it's a silly definition, but one could use it to evaluate claims about whether information gain occurs. The answer would be yes it does.

You can start with a more 'full' genetic database, and weed out genes in order to produce another 'feel' for the animal. Wolves -> poodles. Uberbear -> polar bear.

I much doubt that poodles have significantly fewer active genes than wolves.

 

[The Last Conformist]

There must be a difference between information 'gain' and information 'loss'

Why?

 

[warpus]

Well, I don't know what the hell to call it.

There must be a difference between information 'gain' and information 'loss'

Evolution = some information is gained and some information is lost. It's not one or the other.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oop, another type of 'information loss' could be the stamping out of an allele from a population. For this case, I'm thinking about what happens if humans inbreed for too long.

Presumably only new functional DNA would count as "information gain".

Goodness no, because 'junk DNA' that's gained could later mutate into functional DNA.

Why?

So we can distinguish the two during discussions. Creationist allow that information can be lost, leading to reproductive advantage (lactose tolerance). They seem to often discredit the idea that junk DNA can be added, and then later mutate into something useful.

 

[El_Machinae]

I much doubt that poodles have significantly fewer active genes than wolves.

What I would like to know is whether they have fewer base pairs in their genome.

Anyway, look at it this way. Can we agree that it's easier to get a poodle from a wolf than it is to get a wolf from a poodle?

 

[warpus]

Surely poodle dna is not a subset of wolf dna.

 

[ironduck]

You know, if you breed the scariest poodles you could end up with a super monster poodle of the kind that haunts your nightmares. I bet that could take on any wolf!

 

[El_Machinae]

Surely poodle dna is not a subset of wolf dna.

I have no idea, but I suspect that a lot of it is. The Creationists, however, insist that it mostly is a subset. I don't know.

But that's a good way of expressing it.

My polarbears have a subset of uber-bear DNA.

 

[warpus]

Is there any evidence (ie. fossils, etc.) of such uber-animals ever existing?