New fossils demonstrate that powerful eyes evolved in a twinkling (w/ video)

Jun 29, 2011
A half-billion-year-old fossil compound eye, showing exquisite detail of the visual surface (the individual lenses can be seen as darker spots). Credit: Photo by John Paterson (University of New England).

Palaeontologists have uncovered half-a-billion-year-old fossils demonstrating that primitive animals had excellent vision.

An international team led by scientists from the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide found the exquisite fossils, which look like squashed eyes from a recently swatted fly.

This discovery will be published tomorrow in the journal Nature.

The lead author is Associate Professor Michael Lee from the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide's School of Earth & Environmental Sciences.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Compound Eyes

Modern insects and crustaceans have "compound eyes" consisting of hundreds or even thousands of separate lenses. They see their world as – each lens produces a pixel of vision. More lenses mean more pixels and better visual resolution. (Each lens does not form a miniature image – a myth often perpetuated by Hollywood.)

Evolutionary Advantage

The fossil compound eyes were found on Kangaroo Island, South Australia and are 515 million years old. They have over 3000 lenses, making them more powerful than anything from that era, and probably belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in dim light.

The recently discovered fossil eyes would have seen the world with over 3000 pixels (center image), giving its owner a huge visual advantage over its contemporaries, which would have seen a very blurry world with about 100 pixels (left image). This is much better than the living horseshoe crab, which sees the world as 1,000 pixels, but not as good as living dragonflies, which have the best compound eyes and see the world as ~28,000 pixels (right image). Credit: Image by Thierry Laperousaz (South Australian Museum) and Mike Lee (South Australian Museum/University of Adelaide).

Their discovery reveals that some of the earliest animals possessed very powerful vision; similar eyes are found in many living insects, such as robber flies. Sharp vision must therefore have evolved very rapidly, soon after the first predators appeared during the 'Cambrian Explosion' of life that began around 540 million years ago.

Given the tremendous adaptive advantage conferred by sharp vision for avoiding predators and locating food and shelter, there must have been tremendous evolutionary pressure to elaborate and refine visual organs.

Who owned them?

As the fossil eyes were found isolated, it's not certain what animal they came from, but they probably belonged to a large shrimp-like creature. The rocks containing the eyes also preserve a dazzling array of ancient marine creatures, many new to science. They include primitive trilobite-like creatures, armored worms, and large swimming predators with jointed feeding appendages.

The compound eyes of a living insect -- a predatory robber fly -- showing the individual lenses. Credit: Photo by Peter Hudson (South Australian Museum).

More pixels: more chance of survival

The recently discovered eyes would have seen the world with over 3000 pixels, giving its owner a huge visual advantage over its contemporaries, which would have seen a very blurry world with about 100 pixels. This is much better than the living horseshoe crab, which sees the world as 1000 pixels, but not as good as living dragonflies, which have the best compound eyes and see the world as ~28 000 pixels.

Explore further: Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

Related Stories

Acute artificial compound eyes

May 28, 2008

Insects are a source of inspiration for technological development work. For example, researchers around the world are working on ultra-thin imaging systems based on the insect eye. The principle of hyperacuity ...

Eyes of rock let chitons see predators

Apr 14, 2011

Using eyes made of a calcium carbonate crystal, a simple mollusk may have evolved enough vision to spot potential predators, scientists say.

Soft contacts designed for cone-shaped cornea

May 17, 2007

Custom-designed contacts improved vision for subjects with keratoconic eyes and offer hope of nonsurgical treatment instead of corneal transplants. University of Rochester researchers describe the custom design techniques ...

Blurry-eyed beachcombers beat birds

Apr 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A study from The Australian National University has revealed for the first time how an animal sees and responds to predatory attacks in its natural environment.

Recommended for you

Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

21 hours ago

Impressions from ancient clay seals found at a small site in Israel east of Gaza are signs of government in an area thought to be entirely rural during the 10th century B.C., says Mississippi State University archaeologist ...

Digging up the 'Spanish Vikings'

Dec 19, 2014

The fearsome reputation of the Vikings has made them the subject of countless exhibitions, books and films - however, surprisingly little is known about their more southerly exploits in Spain.

Short-necked Triassic marine reptile discovered in China

Dec 17, 2014

A new species of short-necked marine reptile from the Triassic period has been discovered in China, according to a study published December 17, 2014 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Xiao-hong Chen f ...

Gothic cathedrals blend iron and stone

Dec 17, 2014

Using radiocarbon dating on metal found in Gothic cathedrals, an interdisciplinary team has shown, for the first time through absolute dating, that iron was used to reinforce stone from the construction phase. ...

User comments : 140

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2011
These articles always make me laugh so hard. :)
Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2011
The comparison between pixels and compound eyes is a bit off, because it forgets that the brain of the creature probably stacks the information it recieves and deduces details smaller than any one image cell from the way objects move and transition between the field of view of the individual lenses.

The fields of view overlap anyways, over many cells, which means that a bright contrast edge for example is seen by many individual eyes at the same time, and the intensity and direction can be used to "triangulate" the position of the edge more precisely.

It's somewhat analog to how you can make high resolution pictures out of a webcam connected to a telescope. You take a hundred pictures of a planet, and stack them. Because the planet isn't aligned the same way with the pixel grid in every picture, the stacking actually reveals sub-pixel size details where the pixels of the individual pictures partially overlap.
Johannes414
Jun 29, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scientist_Steve
4.8 / 5 (17) Jun 29, 2011
@Johannes414
Evolution happens whether or not you believe in it. Although, it would be nice if evolution and natural selection didn't work. That way we could actually just keep using the same old antibiotics with no end in sight.
AstrophysicsKid
3.5 / 5 (12) Jun 29, 2011
I get so tired of people hurling comments back and forth on forums like these about evolution / creation. Nobody is going to change anyone else's mind about this in the comments section of a news forum, so why even bother responding to trolls like that?
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 29, 2011
... it would be nice if evolution and natural selection didn't work. That way we could actually just keep using the same old antibiotics with no end in sight.


Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution. When we expose a bacteria to an antibiotic and don't kill all the bacteria, the surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. We have selected for that resistance trait. It did not evolve.
JCD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
Remember guys, it won't convince them unless it's a rabbit. It has to be a rabbit. Other animals or complex traits don't matter. The phrase contained the word rabbit, so there must be something special about rabbits. All I know is that Urbilateria is probably in for a long walk. But he's used to that by now.
aroc91
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 29, 2011
There is no such thing as a "primitive" animal. Even the most simple looking animals have surprisingly intricate and complex functions. God made them that way.

The notion that animals started out primitive and developed into different, more complex animals over millions of years by natural selection of random mutations is not supported by the evidence, and this process has not been observed anywhere by anyone.


It's observed all the time in the lab. What's the formation of a population of penicillin resistant bacteria called?

From genetics we learn that mutations are almost always detrimental and cannot create any new DNA information.


Viral DNA, polyploidy, copy paste transposons. All of those create new DNA information.

I just gave you concrete examples. You can't refute them.

Go fuck yourself. I don't care whether you're sincere and you're actually as dumb as you make yourself out to be or whether you're a troll. Either way, you're completely wrong.

aroc91
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2011
... it would be nice if evolution and natural selection didn't work. That way we could actually just keep using the same old antibiotics with no end in sight.


Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution. When we expose a bacteria to an antibiotic and don't kill all the bacteria, the surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. We have selected for that resistance trait. It did not evolve.


Change in allele frequencies over time = evolution. Selective breeding is evolution. We're changing the allele frequencies of a population.

MUTATIONS arise that create antibiotic resistance.

Edit: Further explanation: The allele for antibiotic resistance is not a wild type trait, as far as I know, for any bacteria. Resistance is a mutation.
DamienS
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2011
The comparison between pixels and compound eyes is a bit off, because it forgets that the brain of the creature probably stacks the information it recieves and deduces details smaller than any one image cell

I don't think it's so much a case of forgetting the underlying physiology of perception, rather they're using a single common metric among a wide range of species - the light sensing cells, for comparative purposes. Generally, the more light sensors you have, the better you can see.

The same rule of thumb applies to digital camera sensors regardless of which auxiliary algorithms are used in subsequent image processing.
Scientist_Steve
5 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2011
@dogbert
You aren't still sore about that religion conversation are you?
As for your comment above, rest assured. I know the difference. Unfortunately, selection pressure (antibiotics) ultimately lead to the establishment of populations that have distinctly different characteristics then the original (evolution). In the example i gave above, i agree that we are selecting for antibiotic resistance. This is a prefect example of an organism that has evolved? You are no doubt gonna launch into a debate about macroevolutionary changes or you are an idiot and somehow though thats what i was implying.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2011
You aren't still sore about that religion conversation are you?


Not sore about anything. Just pointing out that what was claimed to be an instance of evolution was not an instance of evolution. It is a common error, but it is a large error which should be corrected whenever it is presented.
LivaN
5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2011
... it would be nice if evolution and natural selection didn't work. That way we could actually just keep using the same old antibiotics with no end in sight.


Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution. When we expose a bacteria to an antibiotic and don't kill all the bacteria, the surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. We have selected for that resistance trait. It did not evolve.


You are correct. Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution, but rather the same as natural selection. It is therefor the method by which evolution occurs over time, not evolution in it's own right.
Scientist_Steve
5 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2011
@dogbert
I made no error in my original comment, you simply generated an argument off a statement i didn't even make. I don't even disagree with your original reply that we are selecting for antibiotic resistance (which is why i mentioned natural selection in my first post)? You assumed alot from my original post that simply wasn't there in the short comment i made. It seems you are hung up on the distinction between natural selection as it pertains to evolution, not me. Now if you would actually like to have an intelligent conversation about EVOLUTION, please let me know. Just allow me the opportunity to actually make a comment before you attempt to lecture me on anything.
aroc91
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2011
Vote me down all you want, dogbert. It doesn't change the fact that you're a moron.
Johannes414
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2011
Bacterial antibiotic resistance does not constitute proof for Darwinian evolution. They are two different things, check your biology folks.

Bacteria develop into bacteria, so no change there. Darwin however requires bacteria (single cell) to develop into higher organisms and eventually humans - and there is no real proof for that. Antibiotic resistance is simply a mutation that disables an ability to bond with a particular protein. No new information is added to the genome at all, but informationn is in fact lost - devolution instead of evolution!

Darwinian evolution requires completely new code to be written on the gene, and that doesn't happen with random mutations. DNA code is information, and information as far as we know always comes from an intelligent source. There is no reason why DNA would be excluded from that principle.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2011
Scientist Steve,
Just allow me the opportunity to actually make a comment before you attempt to lecture me on anything.


I did allow you to actually make a comment and I was not lecturing you. I was only pointing out the difference between selection and evolution. There is a difference.
aroc91
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2011
Johannes414: Typical inane physorg resident creationist babble


How many times do I have to repeat this?

Viral DNA, polyploidy, copy paste transposons. All those involve additional information being added to the genome.
Deesky
5 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2011
How many times do I have to repeat this?

Wouldn't matter if you repeated it a million times. Some people revel in their own ignorance.
aroc91
5 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2011
Too true.
LivaN
5 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2011
Johannes414
Bacterial antibiotic resistance does not constitute proof for Darwinian evolution. They are two different things, check your biology folks.


It constitutes proof that the mechanism, by which evolution operates, exists. That being random mutations occur, and may be selected for if beneficial in a given environment.

Antibiotic resistance is simply a mutation that disables an ability to bond with a particular protein. No new information is added to the genome at all, but information is in fact lost - devolution instead of evolution!


And what of antibiotic resistance as a result of horizontal gene transfer (HGT)? In this case genetic material from one organism is incorporated into another organism giving it antibiotic resistance. This is simply one example of many. You are posting your opinion of the matter based on fragmented information and erroneous reasoning.
Scientist_Steve
4 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2011
@aroc91
You beat me to the punch. Then again, i noticed you gave those same examples two days ago! I think we are all spinning our wheels with these people. Johannes414 obviously is missing some key information when it comes to biology and probably just wants to argue. Note to Johannes414, before seeing red and firing back a response, read his examples above and reevaluate your previous comment.
On a related note, I have recently discovered that my guilty pleasure is feeding trolls (dogbert)....... I want to stop so bad, but just can't help myself.
aroc91
not rated yet Jul 02, 2011
i noticed you gave those same examples two days ago!


Don't fix what ain't broken, eh? Haha.
Eikka
not rated yet Jul 03, 2011

I don't think it's so much a case of forgetting the underlying physiology of perception, rather they're using a single common metric among a wide range of species - the light sensing cells, for comparative purposes. Generally, the more light sensors you have, the better you can see.


Still. The single lens of a compound eye is a rudimentary eye in its own right. It's not a simple pixel that averages the color and intensity from its whole field of vision, but it actually has a resolution of its own. It sees a small sub-image that the brain of the creature overlaps and patches into a bigger, more detailed picture.

So you can't tell the resolving power of a compound eye just by counting how many lenses there are. You have to know what's behind the lens, which can be partially deduced by observing how the lens is.
JCD
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2011
sorry horizontal gene transfer, jumping elements etc are not new information, and presenting them as such is just a shell game. You can't pass the buck around in a circle forever. You can't transfer something unless it already exists. You need to realize the implications of what you are claiming as they relate to claims of common ancestry. If a certain trait only follows one evolutionary branch instead of another but then later crosses over by HGT, it is no more difficult to account for than if the trait had passed on to both branches, ie. it still needs an evolutionary explanation. Do you understand this?
LivaN
5 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2011
JCD
You missed the point of my example.

In any case, mutations can change genetic information.
The total amount of genetic information can be increased or decreased.

Should I explain how these two aspects lead to "new information"?
Johannes414
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2011
Random mutations cannot generate new information. Information is a coded message sent by an intelligent source. If the intelligent source is missing, the message cannot be coded, get it? "Random information" is in fact an oxymoron.

With mutations, either the information already existed, or there is a net loss of meaningful information.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2011
If the intelligent source is missing, the message cannot be coded, get it?
DNA still exists and still the information from the environment and there is no evidence that there is any other source. You can't change reality by changing the meaning of words. The words are not the reality and any attempt to define evolution out of existence is just a sign that you know you are wrong.

"Random information" is in fact an oxymoron.
Or the words of a moron that knows nothing about information theory that he didn't get from a religious fanatic. Demski is a BAD mathematician. He never proved anything and he never tested his bad math on actual DNA. If he had done the test all he would prove is what real scientists knew all along. Evolution is not random. That is all he can prove and that is the reality of how Natural Selection works.

More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2011
With mutations, either the information already existed, or there is a net loss of meaningful information.
Nonsense. With natural selection NEW INFORMATION is carved into the random data of DNA.

Now run away fanatic. Nonsense won't make reality go away. Nor will bad math from a guy you clearly haven't read. I did. And its crap. Go ahead. Get Dembski and I will kick his asinine ideas all over the place. You sure don't understand information and neither does Dembski.

Oh and when was the Flood? Go ahead give a real date not another evasion.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2011
Ethelred is really wants to know the exact date of the flood.
Whatever the subject of discussion is, he has to ask about the flood.

If we ever have an article on physorg.com about the flood, Ethelred will be prepared for the discussion.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2011
Ethelred is really wants to know the exact date of the flood.
No. I want YOU to know that the Bible produces a date that is contrary to reality.

Whatever the subject of discussion is, he has to ask about the flood.
Lie. Only when religious fanatics tell lies.

Since you just told one how about YOU deal with the severe time problem for the Flood?

If we ever have an article on physorg.com about the flood, Ethelred will be prepared for the discussion.
I am prepared. Done it many times. Never seen a shred of evidence that can overturn the reality that the Great Flood never happened. Seen evidence for local floods but nothing that killed of all life that breathed air or crawled on the Earth that wasn't a on one big ass boat. It not only didn't happen at all the dating the Bible produces is contrary to known WRITTEN history.

So do YOU accept the challenge to support the Bible? If you can't support it perhaps you should start accepting reality.

Ethelred
dse471
5 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2011
If you randomly generate a password and throw away combinations that do not work, then you can arrive at a user's end password; this is new information. The act of testing and selecting makes the result non-random (though the mutations are somewhat random). The only problem with evolution is that some short-sighted humans can't truly appreciate how long 4 billion years actually is.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2011
The flood of Noah was global not local. The Bible mentions that the whole earth was covered with water, and all the life perished. If the flood had been local all the animals could have migrated elsewhere, and Noah would have conveniently walked over to the dry side.

The Bible does not provide a date for the flood. But geology shows it must have been quite recent. A clue is the advent of the first walled cities in Sumeria and Akkadia. Beyond those societies, there seems to be a gap going back to some older, more global oriented civilization in the time of Noah.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2011
We should not feed the troll ...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2011
When we expose a bacteria to an antibiotic and don't kill all the bacteria, the surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. We have selected for that resistance trait. It did not evolve.

It's so funny when dummies like dogbert go ahead and tell us they believe in evolution, but not in "evolution" because of religious bias.

Cognitive disconnect doesn't even begin to paint the picture of crazy that must be going on in your head.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (69) Jul 05, 2011
We should not feed the troll ...


So ironic.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2011
It is so funny when people like Skeptic_Heretic resort to random personal insults because they lack the ability to rationally discuss anything.
Johannes414
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2011
I dont look upon people as trolls. Yes people can be abusive and nasty, but in principle they are souls that can be saved from the power of hell, by the grace of Jesus. I know, because I was like them once. Until the Lord gave me a new heart and a new Spirit. He came to earth specifically for sinners to come to repentance and knowledge of the truth.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2011
It is so funny when people like Skeptic_Heretic resort to random personal insults because they lack the ability to rationally discuss anything.

Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong.

You're the one who makes their commentary worthy of derision. You state that evolution doesn't exist, just diversification and selection by the environment for expressed traits (which is evolution).
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2011
Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong.


You are wrong because you attack personalities instead of discussing issues.

You're the one who makes their commentary worthy of derision. You state that evolution doesn't exist, just diversification and selection by the environment for expressed traits (which is evolution).


See, now you lie. I have never said that evolution doesn't exist.

You should really try to say something which actually adds to the discussion. Name calling belongs in the playground. Adults should behave better.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 05, 2011
Adults generally pick the proper forum for discussing the topic at hand.
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2011
Thank you Frank. That is true.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2011
See, now you lie. I have never said that evolution doesn't exist.
Oh really?
I was only pointing out the difference between selection and evolution. There is a difference.
What is it?
Adults should behave better.
I'll treat you like one when you show the worldly knowledge of one.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

I pointed out your lie. I never said that evolution doesn't exist when you claim I did.

Point out when I said what you said I said. Provide a link to any statement I have ever made in which I said that evolution did not exist.

I will say it again. You lied. Why not just admit you lied?

Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2011
I never said that evolution doesn't exist when you claim I did.
Attacking at every opportunity and claiming that mutations and Natural Selection don't constitute evolution IS claiming that evolution doesn't exist. Stealth attacks on science by people that are unwilling to admit they are engaged in an attack are nothing new here.

So how about you make your actual postition clear and the stick with it instead making these attacks that look exactly like the sort that Creationists often engage in when they want to hide their intent.

If you keep walking the walk and talking the talk of stealth Creationists it is very hard to accept your claim of not being one.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2011
The flood of Noah was global not local.
So evidence should be everywhere. There should be no doubt about it. Yet there is NO evidence to support it.

and all the life perished.
Which is completely unsupported by any evidence.

f the flood had been local all the animals could have migrated elsewhere, and Noah would have conveniently walked over to the dry side.
Yes. The Bible is quite clear about Jehovah's intent to slaughter all life that breathed air or crawled. Pretty sick behavior.

The Bible does not provide a date for the flood.
That is disingenuous at best. You know perfectly well that there are ages and events that can be added up. Doing so produces dates that range around 4400 years ago give or take 200 years. No one has managed to get older dates that are based on the Bible.

But geology shows it must have been quite recent.
There is no such geological evidence. Geology shows that it never happened.>>
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2011
A clue is the advent of the first walled cities in Sumeria and Akkadia.
They are evidence that there was no Flood. Of course the entire Earth is evidence that there was no Flood.

Beyond those societies, there seems to be a gap going back to some older, more global oriented civilization in the time of Noah.
No. There is such thing. Nor is there any evidence at all that all life that breaths air was killed in any way much drowned. There would be incontrovertible genetic evidence. All life would show VERY little genetic variation. The Clean animals would show more variation due to having more ancestors. Humans would have ONE single father and that would be very clear in the Y chromosome. There would have been four, at most, lines of Mitochondrial DNA from the four wives. There is no such thing in human DNA.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2011
The evidence is clear. There was no Flood. If there had been such a flood NO ONE WOULD QUESTION IT. I sure wouldn't. I wouldn't bother to ask for evidence as I would already have it. A flood as described in the Bible and with the dating that the Bible produces or even many times that length of time would have left absolutely undeniable evidence.

So where is it? Come on Johannes you are so certain that there is evidence produce some. And please explain how all the people that have run the numbers from the Bible could have botched it while you are at it. You made the claim now support it.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
Ethelred,
So how about you make your actual postition clear and the stick with it ...


I have made myself clear on these issues. I have no problem with the theory of evolution.

Why don't you look up the meaning of "evolution" so that you can understand that selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution is expected to occur -- not evolution itself?

Correcting a misconception is not attacking anything.

Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2011
Why don't you look up the meaning of "evolution"
I know the meaning. Only blindness could make you doubt that.

election is one of the mechanisms by which evolution is expected to occur
It does occur. So it isn't merely expected. It happens. Both selection and the process how organisms change over generations. The process is called evolution.

I have made myself clear on these issues.
Not really.

Correcting a misconception is not attacking anything.
If that was all you did I wouldn't have a problem with your posts on this. I correct people on misconceptions regarding evolution fairly frequently. In most such discussions the errors are from people that are trying to make evolution go away because they have a religion based with it. But not always.

Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution.
False. It is the same. Whether the selection is by man or the rest of the environment there is still a change in species and that is evolution.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
he surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic
Quite. And if the strain does not have any defense to start with it is those that mutated that survived. Those mutations and the environmental selection constitute evolutionary change. Only if the strain already had defenses in some the individual organisms would there be evolution. There wouldn't be adaptation in that case either. There would a change in the gene frequencies which is not really evolution. But if the adaptations were due to mutations that would be evolution.

Now if you had written that way then you would have been correcting an error. Assuming the original poster was not just bowing to the vile 1000 character limit.>>
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2011
What Steve said was completely correct. Bacteria do evolve to adapt to most antibiotics. Even in the case of penicillin bacteria in wild evolved to adapt to the mold in the wild. That bacteria can sometimes exchange DNA doesn't change the fact that both the mold and bacteria had to evolve their respective chemical weapons in the first place. Since many antibiotics are man made no bacteria had a readily available defense to start with. They may have adapted chemicals that originally evolved to deal with penicillin but those chemicals had to evolve to deal with the new antibiotics or the antibiotics wouldn't have worked on penicillin resistant bacteria in the first place.

Your post ignored all that reality to attack a post by someone who was completely correct. Most likely you did that to defend Johannes who is clearly unable to accept any bit reality that disagrees with his ignorance. Johannes is here to spread ignorance not to debate.>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2011
This is not a religion site. Johaness's posts did not belong here.

When you start telling the kevins and Johaness' to move along then I might start to think you are sincere. In the meantime I have little reason to keep in mind that religious posters have a strong tendency to be disingenuous. Which is contrary to the Golden Rule but they do it anyway.

Giving me ones for rational posts that disagree with irrational religion based posts is just another indicator that you are here to push your religious beliefs. I don't give your rational posts ones EXCEPT in retaliation.

Quit walking and quaking like a duck if you don't want to be thought of as being remarkably similar to a duck.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2011
Ethelred,

It is apparent fron your rant that you do not understand that the term "evolution" and the term "selection" are not interchangeable. I can't help your limitations in understanding.

You state you know who votes and how they vote. How do you know this.

On the issue of religious statements, you constantly make statements about the flood when no one is discussing it but you.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2011
It is apparent fron your rant that you do not understand that the term "evolution" and the term "selection" are not interchangeable. I can't help your limitations in understanding.
Selection over multiple generations is evolution. You appear to be the one who is unable to grasp this simple concept.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

I can't help your inability to understand the difference between selection and evolution either.

Perhaps you can try to believe that they have different meanings? Or perhaps you could use a dictionary?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
It is apparent fron your rant that you do not understand that the term "evolution"
I thank you for showing your ignorance on the subject of both evolution and rants.

evolution" and the term "selection" are not interchangeable
I didn't claim that. You have a reading problem. I clearly was dealing with mutation followed by selection. Just like I always do. If you think that isn't what evolution is you have been learning from The Nonsense In Genesis site.

I can't help your limitations in understanding.
Nor can you invent limitations that do not exist. Not honestly anyway. Try reading what I wrote again.

You state you know who votes and how they vote. How do you know this.
Your ignorance on this after all this time is amazing. I figured it out the first day. I will leave you to your ignorance on this. After you learn how to explore your environment you might be better fit to read my posts.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
On the issue of religious statements, you constantly make statements about the flood when no one is discussing it but you.
I ask when it is appropriate. When religious fanatics come here and spread ignorance I ask questions that are inconvenient to their beliefs. They brought in religion not me. I never start that crap. I just end it.

One way to end it is to ask them things they don't want to think about. You clearly are one more that doesn't want to think about the problems with the Bible and the Flood. I find that even Old Earth Creationists actually believe in that nonexistent Flood so it is a very appropriate way to make it clear that the Bible is not the word of an all knowing god. It is hardly the only error in the Bible but is a very significant one as it involves both a nonexistent event and a god acting in ways indistinguishable from a psychotic.

Oh and you got a one for reading problems. And in retaliation.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

I can't help your inability to understand the difference between selection and evolution either.
Do you really need people to laugh at you this often?
Perhaps you can try to believe that they have different meanings? Or perhaps you could use a dictionary?
Go ahead, tell us the difference in terms of evolution. Let us know how selection over multiple generations is not evolution.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 06, 2011
LOL, dogbert, just stop. lol
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
Evolution theory proposes that speciation results from such changes as selection, mutation, genetic drift. None of those represent evolution until speciation occurs.

To put it in simple terms that you should be able to grasp, a trait selected for may not survive. In that case there is no speciation and no evolution.

You exhibit a strange inability to understand the simplest concepts.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (65) Jul 06, 2011
Dogbert, does speciation occur?

-OR- Better yet,

Are you a product of speciation?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2011
Evolution theory proposes that speciation results from such changes as selection, mutation, genetic drift. None of those represent evolution until speciation occurs.
False. Speciation is not required for evolution. Speciation is not evolution. Yes, the presence of speciation proves evolution, however you need not become a new species to evolve, dolt.

To put it in simple terms that you should be able to grasp, a trait selected for may not survive. In that case there is no speciation and no evolution.
If the selected for trait doesn't survive, then it wasn't selected for. Example, a mutation makes your hair bright pink, and women suddenly find that attractive, yet it also makes you sterile. That trait was selected against as it prevents reproduction.

You exhibit a strange inability to understand the simplest concepts.
Next time you want to attempt to educate me in evolution, learn what it is first.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2011
Go fuck yourself. I don't care whether you're sincere and you're actually as dumb as you make yourself out to be or whether you're a troll. Either way, you're completely wrong.
Johan is whats called a congenital liar:

"...who couldn't speak the truth if his life depended on it" because:
I was like them once. Until the Lord gave me a new heart and a new Spirit. He came to earth specifically for sinners to come to repentance and knowledge of the truth.
-In other words, he had a major breakdown of some sort which allowed him to supplant ordinary reason for extraordinary delusion. No doubt experienced as an epiphany:

"when a person realizes their faith or when they are convinced that an event or happening was really caused by a deity or being of their faith. In Hinduism, for example, epiphany might refer to the realization of Arjuna that Krishna (a God serving as his charioteer in the "Bhagavad Gita") is indeed representing the universe..." -et al.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
Johan may think his revelation is unique to his personal beliefs, but it is a common occurrance in all religions, when people can no longer cope with the pain or confusion that their reason is causing them, and surrender to the comfort and certainty of fantasy.

This is for obvious reasons unnatural, in that for instance praying when threatened by a carnivore instead of climbing a tree would lessen the chances of surviving to procreate.

But in this sad world there are many such unfortunates who will gather together in order to reinforce their delusions. This can actually increase their rate of procreation, although it does tend to weaken the overall quality of the species.

At any rate the VALUE of this fabricated reality to the people who find refuge in it is so GREAT, that they will lie, cheat, steal and even kill; in short they will commit any CRIME deemed necessary to preserve it.

Hence johans compulsion to ignore the truth and summarily LIE in support of his affliction.
aroc91
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2011
It is apparent fron your rant that you do not understand that the term "evolution" and the term "selection" are not interchangeable. I can't help your limitations in understanding.
Selection over multiple generations is evolution. You appear to be the one who is unable to grasp this simple concept.


Actually, that's not technically correct. Evolution and selection are different concepts. Selection over time is selection. Allele frequency shift over time is evolution. However, natural selection can guide it. They work in conjunction, but they're separate things.
aroc91
5 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2011
Random mutations cannot generate new information. Information is a coded message sent by an intelligent source. If the intelligent source is missing, the message cannot be coded, get it? "Random information" is in fact an oxymoron.

With mutations, either the information already existed, or there is a net loss of meaningful information.


Can you read? I've provided you with tangible, factual, observed phenomena that insert new information into a genome multiple times. Do I really have to list them for you for the 5th or so time?
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2011
FrankHerbert,
Dogbert, does speciation occur?


Are you truly unaware that the world is filled with many species?
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (64) Jul 06, 2011
Are you a product of speciation?
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2011
Are you?
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (65) Jul 06, 2011
Yes.
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2011
Good. Now, are we through discussing the obvious?
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2011
Evolution theory proposes that speciation results from such changes as selection, mutation, genetic drift.
Yes.

None of those represent evolution until speciation occurs.
No. Species can evolve without splitting. You don't get define biological processes out of existence.

To put it in simple terms that you should be able to grasp, a trait selected for may not survive.
To put it in simple terms even a Creationist SHOULD be able to grasp, not surviving is the entire physical cause of evolution by Natural Selection. Mutations can ONLY be selected by survival vs. non-survival.

Do try to keep up. And you really need to grasp another concept. We, or least I, DO understand the process of evolution. That process is NOT subject to definition games no matter who wants to play them.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2011
. In that case there is no speciation and no evolution.
False. Not surviving IS the cause of evolution. Non-survival is the end of evolution for that line of descent but IS part of evolution. Can't have evolution without it.

You exhibit a strange inability to understand the simplest concepts.
Funny. We know YOU are the problem with understanding the biological process we call evolution. You seem to under the mistaken impression that word games can change reality.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2011
Evolution and selection are different concepts.
The concepts are not the reality. Evolution takes place by mutation followed by selection. That really is all there is too it. There are things like the Founder Effect going on as well but those too are part of selection.

Allele frequency shift over time is evolution.
No. Not at all. Mutations MUST be involved or all you have is a change in the proportions of genes not a change in the genes themselves. At the base evolution of life on Earth is a change in the actual DNA or RNA. For instance the white vs black moth in England example that some people are found of isn't really a case of evolution. It is just a change in the gene FREQUENCY not the genes themselves. It can be thought of as mere adaptation vs. evolution.

However, natural selection can guide it.
Natural Selection is not merely a guide. It is the entire key to evolution. It is how information can be added to the DNA.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2011
They work in conjunction, but they're separate things.
Not really. Without actual changes in the DNA all you have a change in gene frequencies and that simply isn't a change in the species that could lead to speciation or an increase in complexity. There simply wouldn't be any fossil evidence to explain if gene frequency changes was the reality of evolution. No one would even noticed without mutations and random mutation cannot increase complexity without the pruning of selection.

Try this way of thinking about it.

A sculptor can start with a block of marble but the information comes from what the sculptor selects OUT vs what the sculptor leaves IN. Mutations are like the marble, random bits of matter. It takes selection to give it shape.

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2011
You guys are seriously getting hung up on speciation? There's no such thing as a species. There are only groups of organisms whose common ancestor(s) are more or less distant in generations.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2011
Are you truly unaware that the world is filled with many species?
Evasion.

Are you?
Evasion.

Good. Now, are we through discussing the obvious?
Yet another refusal to actually answer the question.

The real question is do YOU think that speciation occurs? Not whether we do.

Please quit evading the question. It is another case of you acting like a stealth creationist. Your non-answers were exactly what I expected, assuming you didn't just pretend that it wasn't asked. Which is what you did with my replies to your nonsense.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2011
You guys are seriously getting hung up on speciation?
Its the Creationists that are hung up on it. They think it makes their god go away. Which is not quite accurate. It makes it clear that their belief in their god is not founded in reality.

There's no such thing as a species.
Actually there are. We have word that is USUALLY defined as organisms that cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring.

There are only groups of organisms whose common ancestor(s) are more or less distant in generations.
That is a perfectly good way of looking at life on Earth but it still doesn't the word 'species' go away. The only real problem with the word is when people define it as organism that don't normally interbreed. Pretty much a worthless definition that isn't worth bothering with.

A better definition of species

Sexually reproducing organisms that cannot interbreed.

Bacteria can exchange DNA, at least in theory, even when they are long separated in time.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2011
I avoid using the term species with any organisms that don't reproduce sexually. I have come to think of sexually reproducing species as a sort of super organism made up of all the members of the species. Clonal organisms are quite different. They have lines of descent and can only evolve very slowly.

Early euchariotic lines of descent must have been clonal as DNA exchange would have been difficult until the development of DNA pairs. Maybe the DNA pairs came early but the slow evolution of eucharotes early makes that unlikely.

Sexual reproduction in euchariotic organisms is the main reason I find the concept of species to have value.

I mean besides torquing off the Creationist.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (65) Jul 07, 2011
Duckbert's non-answers are more creationist quacking. If it sounds like a duck...
aroc91
not rated yet Jul 07, 2011
No. Not at all. Mutations MUST be involved or all you have is a change in the proportions of genes not a change in the genes themselves. At the base evolution of life on Earth is a change in the actual DNA or RNA. For instance the white vs black moth in England example that some people are found of isn't really a case of evolution. It is just a change in the gene FREQUENCY not the genes themselves. It can be thought of as mere adaptation vs. evolution.


What? That's the definition of evolution- change in allele frequency of a population over time.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
That's the definition of evolution- change in allele frequency of a population over time.
Right. I am sure Darwin and Wallace knew all about that.

Only someone that is in to avoiding mutations would use that as a definition. You don't get real change without actual change in the DNA. Frequency change only is not evolution its is just a change in the percentage of alleles in a species. Which leaves out all non-sexually reproducing organism. It is the sort of thing someone might push if they think there is no evidence for speciation.

Where the heck did you get that wimpy worthless definition from anyway?

Ethelred
Johannes414
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
The classification system (taxonomy) of plants and animals was invented by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1700s. His system is still in use today. Linnaeus was a Chritian who believed in creation. His view on speciation was that the original plants and animals in the garden of Eden contained all the information necessary to generate all the species. Speciation to him was not random or open-ended.

And a word to my friend aroc91:

I can read. But unfortunately you can't. DNA copying and insertion is not proof for Darwinian evolution. Its exactly what it says: a copy. A copy of information that already exists. So no new information is created. We are still waiting for an example of a random mutation creating NEW information on the gene.

Hint: Epulopiscium fishelsoni has 90,000 polyploid copies of DNA, making it the world champion of DNA copying. Surprise: although weighing a million times as much as your average bacterium, its still a bacterium.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
Linnaeus was a Chritian who believed in creation.
Yes. And he was wrong. Made other errors as well.

His view on speciation was that the original plants and animals in the garden of Eden contained all the information necessary to generate all the species.
Well he was wrong on that too. There was no Garden of Eden. The world is vastly older than the Genesis allows. So do you actually think the world is wrong instead of a book written long ago by men that were even more ignorant than you? Of course in their case the ignorance may not have been self induced.

Speciation to him was not random or open-ended.
Well he got one part right. It isn't random. However it is open ended.

Why do you insist on lying that evolution is random?

I can read.
You chose ignorance anyway.

But unfortunately you can't.
Sure he can. He simply is using a bad definition of evolution. Otherwise he is spot on.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
DNA copying and insertion is not proof for Darwinian evolution.
Correct. It is how Darwinian evolution works. The proof is the change over time and megatons of fossils, the lab tests, and the field experiments. All that fits evolution.

Its exactly what it says: a copy.
Sorry thats another thing you are wrong on. There are mutations so the copies are often not exact.

So no new information is created.
But mutations make the information change. Natural selection is what makes it non-random.

We are still waiting for an example of a random mutation creating NEW information on the gene.
No. We are not as the evidence has been found. Many times actually.

Surprise: although weighing a million times as much as your average bacterium, its still a bacterium.
Nevertheless it still evolved and gained information via mutation and Natural Selection.

Lying so much would really have Jehovah angry with you if he existed.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
FrankHerbert,
Duckbert's non-answers are more creationist quacking. If it sounds like a duck...


Agreeing and disagreeing is the same with with. You only want a forum to promote your atheism. You should apply your duck metaphor to yourself.

You chose to talk about species and speciation. I do not like the terms because they are poorly and variously defined. But in so far as we can agree that there are many different plants and animals on earth and agree that they represent different species, I agreed that there were species. And in so far as there are multiple species, there must be speciation, I agreed to that too.

But you did not want that. You wanted to proselytize and you continue to do that.

I do not agree with your flawed model of reality, but you are welcome to remain an atheist. Your constant proselytizing is not particularly welcome, however.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
We are still waiting for an example of a random mutation creating NEW information on the gene.


The random mutation IS the new information. It wasn't there before. That's what makes it a mutation.

The copying is just that mutation being selected for through reproduction and survival.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Javinator,

Information requires intelligence, because information only has meaning within a coded system of rules. It is not the same as random bits or noise.

Most mutations do something like this:

"This is DNA code" (before mutation)
"is is ywyNA code" (after mutation)

In the example we have a deletion and a random insertion. But which sentence contains more information according to you?
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Your example shows new information being introduced through the mutation. It's random, but it's still new (there was no ywy before). In this context, however, I doubt it would be selected for.

Now if you applied lots of random mutations you could eventually end up with something like:

"This is RNA code"

The sentence would still make sense, but would be conveying new information and, in this context, could potentially be selected for.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
"Now if you applied lots of random mutations you could eventually end up with something like:"This is RNA code"

Proof?

Noise is not information according to information theory. Random sequences that cannot be decoded or interpreted are not considerd information.

For instance, this posting contains information, but if you shake all the letters unto a pile, the information is lost but the bits are still there - get the picture?

Your contention that randomness wrote the DNA sequence is statistically impossible, and no example of this kind of mutation has ever been produced.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
You're asking for proof that, if a large number of random letter transformations were performed on the sentence "This is DNA code" you could get "This is RNA code"?

That's a 1 letter change. A computer program could easily be written to prove this (and no, I'm not going to write one just because you don't understand how large numbers are not impossible numbers).

Assuming an equal probability that one letter in the sentence can be changed to any other letter (I'll throw in caps and lower case as separate) you get:

1/16 chance of the right letter being changed since there are 16 letters and spaces
1/53 chance of changing to the right letter or a space

Multiplying those together gives a 1/848 chance of generating the sentence "This is RNA code" from "This is DNA code". Those are hardly impossible odds of randomly generating new information from the old information you provided.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
Information requires intelligence, because information only has meaning within a coded system of rules. It is not the same as random bits or noise.

So you don't understand the definition of information.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2011
Information only requires "intelligence" at the receiving end, not the generating end. Intelligence is in quotes because it doesn't mean "fully-conscious, self-aware intelligence" but only some means of receiving, interpreting and using that information, and all of those elements can be entirely sub-conscious.

There is no a priori difference between noise and information before there is an interpreter for that information. The difference between "noise" and "signal" depends entirely on what the interpreter cares about. There are patterns in the noise everywhere you look. "Information" is simply those patterns one cares about, while "noise" is everything else. Change what you care about or what you're looking for, and you change what part of the raw data stream is "information" and what part is "noise."
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Javinator,

No that is not what I asked. But thanks anyway. There is no example where random mutations added new information (new, not copied from an existing source) onto the genome.

By the way, your random generator program probably needs some intelligent source to program it. Random is random, no cheats allowed. Or did the program also write ittself ?
Johannes414
1 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Thrasymachus ,

So does the DNA code represent information according to you or not?
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
Your contention that randomness wrote the DNA sequence is statistically impossible, and no example of this kind of mutation has ever been produced.


Don't confuse improbability with impossibility.

Think of it like the lottery.

The odds of you personally winning the lottery are incredibly low. The odds of the lottery being won, however, are significantly higher.

Similarly, the odds of getting to our exact genetic sequence through evolution are very low, however the odds of evolution having lead to some form of life are significantly higher.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Thrasymachus ,

So does the DNA code represent information according to you or not?

Certainly, as there is an interpreter: the various proteins and RNA that transcribe DNA, and the further processes that translate that transcription into lengths of various folded proteins. It also constitutes information for us because we can correlate the patterns we find in DNA to patterns we find in other things, like the occurrence of certain phenotypic traits. Many other things are information as well, such as the radioactive decay of an atom inside a sample, detected by a Geiger counter. That's a completely random and unpredictable occurrence, but one which tells us something potentially useful about the sample, and thus it is information. Information doesn't require an intelligent source to be information. It only requires an interpreter that has a means of discrimination, translation and incorporation of some elements of a raw data stream.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Javinator,

So life evolving is like a lottery? Random? I thought evolutionists always denied that evolution was just about chance...its about natural selection they say, and pressures and this and that.

If evolution was really like the lottery, a different kind of system would have developed. Penrose wrote some material on that. However, we "evolved". That fact requires some explanation other than: the lottery.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
No that is not what I asked. But thanks anyway. There is no example where random mutations added new information (new, not copied from an existing source) onto the genome.


I just used your example to show you how new information is added. I would say the greatest evidence you're providing against evolution is your inability to comprehend what you read.

By the way, your random generator program probably needs some intelligent source to program it. Random is random, no cheats allowed. Or did the program also write ittself ?[q/]

Judging by your introduction of that non-sequitur, you don't seem to understand much.

The program would generate random letters in that sentence. That's it. You asked me to prove that, by randomly changing letters in a sentence I could make a different sentence, but you're not letting me use a random letter generator to change the letters?

I have something for you to read about:

http://en.wikiped...ki/Logic
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Thrasymachus,

You are confusing information as a symbolic representation of real world items and the item itself. A mistale that one encounters often.

DNA is information, because it can be interpreted within a coded system with attached semantics (that excludes noise, which is only coded without semantics).

The DNA itself however is a biological fact. Information is not "das Ding an sich" but always a symbolic representation.

The decay of an atom is different, it is not the same as information. It is a natural process, a real world object. Information does not exist by itself, but only as a coded representation of something else. What would be considered information is forn instance an analysis of the Geiger measurements and the subsequent equations.

I hope you see the difference now.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
So life evolving is like a lottery? Random? I thought evolutionists always denied that evolution was just about chance...its about natural selection they say, and pressures and this and that.


Well you can only evolve using the random mutations that happened to occur. Which mutations occur at a given time is random, however, the selection of those mutations (ie. which ones survive) are not random. They're based on the ability for them to make the organism survive.

If evolution was really like the lottery, a different kind of system would have developed. Penrose wrote some material on that. However, we "evolved". That fact requires some explanation other than: the lottery.


No, it just means a different system COULD have developed, not WOULD have (ie. someone else could win the lottery on the next draw). It's unlikely that we would evolve into exactly what we are without the same conditions exactly throughout our history.
aroc91
not rated yet Jul 07, 2011
That's the definition of evolution- change in allele frequency of a population over time.
Right. I am sure Darwin and Wallace knew all about that.

Only someone that is in to avoiding mutations would use that as a definition. You don't get real change without actual change in the DNA. Frequency change only is not evolution its is just a change in the percentage of alleles in a species. Which leaves out all non-sexually reproducing organism. It is the sort of thing someone might push if they think there is no evidence for speciation.

Where the heck did you get that wimpy worthless definition from anyway?

Ethelred


That's a textbook definition. Are you taking me for a creationist? I've sided with you as long as I've "known" you.

Note that that definition doesn't imply that mutation and natural selection aren't the phenomena that drive the allele freq. shifts. I totally agree with that, I just had a disagreement with the way you worded it, that's all.
aroc91
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
We are still waiting for an example of a random mutation creating NEW information on the gene.


The random mutation IS the new information. It wasn't there before. That's what makes it a mutation.

The copying is just that mutation being selected for through reproduction and survival.


Actually, the copying is how additional bases are added to a genome. Without it and the other examples I provided, we wouldn't have 6 billion base pairs to work with as a species. We'd be limited to the presumably short genome that the first organism had.

Edit: To avoid confusion, this is in context to copy paste transposons, which, as their name implies, insert additional copies of themselves into the genome.
J-n
5 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
Mutations are random, mutation turns out to be deadly to the animal they die. Mutation turns out to be not deadly they live.
Mutation turns out to be benifical the mutation is passed on, and becomes a part of the gene pool, and may eventually become a part of every living example of said animal.

Natural Selection is just the animal dying(or reproducing less) because the mutation is not helpful (or deadly), or reproducing at a higher rate because the mutation is helpful.

The mutation is random, what happens after is not.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2011
I'm not the one making the mistake about information here. The code and semantics are features of the interpreter, not of the information itself as a member of a stream of raw data. The information in a strand of DNA is a coded representation FOR the tRNA and mRNA that translate DNA into proteins. In itself, without those mechanisms of interpretations and translations, it is not information, it's just a complicated sugar molecule.

The appearance of a decay event is information if we perceive that event (discrimination) and interpret it (incorporation) into something meaningful for us (translation). Because we perceive decay events with a Geiger counter, it is that "tic" it makes that is informative for us.

Information is a real object because it requires symbolization within some medium. You write with ink and paper, or keyboards and pixels. These are real objects that have mass and everything. What makes a set of real object information is the existence of an interpreter.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2011
From Evolutionfaq.com (lol)

Isn't Evolution Totally Random?
While it is true that new traits can appear through the accumulation of small random genetic mutations, it is the non-random process of Natural Selection that determines which traits to keep and which to discard. For example, a random mutation may cause a brown squirrel to be born white. But if the squirrel lives on a brown tree, its color will quickly alert predators to its existence. The white squirrel will not live long enough to reproduce and pass on the trait. In this environment, nature selects for brown squirrels, not white. If the process were random, then the white squirrel would survive just as well as the brown.


A little better explanation on the whole "random" question.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
No one denies that mutations occur and natural selection occurs. What however is missing is the evidence that these phenomena did and can lead to molecules-to-man (Darwinian)evolution. One might believe it happened (its a free country), but that remains in the realm of faith.

Especially since there is no example of new information (new! not a copy!) being created on the gene by random mutations. And that is required for Darwins theory to work: the advent of completely new functions, like eyes, ears, skin, lungs, wings and brains from a single cell over millions of years. No proof that ever happened.
Thrasymachus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
There is more than abundant evidence in the fossil record, in embryonic development records and in genetic research itself. Abundant examples of new information being added to the genetic code, of genes that did not exist before being added to the length of DNA from multiple different sources, and of brand new mutations occurring in genes resulting in entirely novel expressions.

You have absolutely nothing but a dogged refusal to consider any other viewpoint than your biblical literalist one. Even your weak argument on the semantics of what constitutes "information" breaks down.
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
No one denies that mutations occur and natural selection occurs.


You are actively denying this throughout this discussion.

Especially since there is no example of new information (new! not a copy!) being created on the gene by random mutations.


This statement by you has been shown false multiple times above.

Your concepts of 'new', 'copy', and 'information' are all in disagreement with those of everyone else.

You don't understand what information is, which is why you don't understand that a random mutation is new information, which is why you don't understand why the mutation is not a copy.

And that is required for Darwins theory to work: the advent of completely new functions, like eyes, ears, skin, lungs, wings and brains from a single cell over millions of years.


Billions actually.
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
From TalkOrigins.org

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved


Natural speciation observed, and documented.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Javinator,

"random mutation is new information"

If that is "information", it is useless because it is without semantics. It is like saying that the sentence "jkhh hdhjdf jkcjd" constitues new information. Even a child would understand this I think.

A random mutation might create data (bits) but does not create information (with meaning). Again, information requires a coding system and semantics. In a random sequence, the semantics is missing.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Thrasymachus,

Fossils are dead animals rapidly deposited by a catastrophic event (for instance the billions of fossils deposited by Noahs flood). They do not come with a list of their past mutations. In fact only complete species are found in the fossil records, no intermediates or mutants exist as evolution requires, in order to be true.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
Don't use the sentence or letters metaphor any more. You don't understand your own metaphor.

That string of letters you just showed IS new information. Some information is useful, some is not.

Those random letters that you just wrote provided my brain with a series of letters. I can sound them out in my head. It's nonsensical and useless, but the information is provided and I can interpret it into sounds.

I already explained how random mutations of letters in sentences can convey new, useful information as well.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Jn,

Plants produce many varieties due to the inbuilt ability to change (variation within a kind). Like Darwins finches, they remain just that: finches (or goatsbeard in this case). This is not molecules-to-man evolution at all, but just shows the flexibility of the gene pool, and the robustness of Gods creation.
J-n
not rated yet Jul 07, 2011
What do you mean by Intermediate species? What would be an Incomplete Species?
Johannes414
1 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Javinator,

Let me try it one more time and then I have to suspend class :)

Information = Coding Semantics Storage Medium

For instance:

"yehwbcdlwdbckwbcqbfcbbccjjdjd7djkcdkjdjfghwt66tgyeg88id"

Coding = present, alfanumerical
Semantics = missing, no interpretation possible
Storage = present, this posting

So no new information...information is connected with meaning.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2011
so you are saying that to types of plant that are unable to interbreed are not two different species?
Thrasymachus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
It's absolutely untrue that no intermediaries or mutations are found in the fossil record, and absolutely untrue that fossilization only occurs in catastrophes. It's also untrue that fossilization only preserves complete species. At best, it preserves one complete animal. Usually, it's bits and pieces of various plants and animals all jumbled together.

This is the point when Ethelred's refrain of "When was the Flood" becomes appropriate. At any rate, this is getting more than tedious, and you're starting to proselytize, which is against comment rules. Advocacy for creationism or any brand of ID is not science and will earn an abuse report from me in the future.
Thrasymachus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
Whether there is any semantics in that string of alphanumeric characters you printed is not a function of that string, but a function of the interpreter. That is the point that you fundamentally fail to grasp. Semantics is not carried within the code beforehand, it is applied to the code afterwards.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Jn,

Chihiahua and big Danes are not able to interbreed. Are they both dogs according to you?

You see, all dogs (as well as wolves, dingo, coyote and jackall) share a common gene pool that goes back to the original kind that was created by God.

That kind over time led to many different species which are the result of different combinations of the same genes, as genetic anaysis has shown. No evolution as in amoeba-to-Adam.
Johannes414
Jul 07, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Johannes414
Jul 07, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2011
And you've proved my point. Your message is meaningless because I lack the capability to interpret it. If you intended to transmit any information by it, your intention is thwarted. Now, I could run some sort of translation program on that jibberish and turn it into something meaningful. Then information would be transmitted, but whether that information is the same as what you intended to transmit is irrelevant. Only the properties of the interpreter matter when determining what counts as information.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
Chihiahua and big Danes are not able to interbreed. Are they both dogs according to you?


They most certainly CAN interbreed, they are the same species. It's not easy due to the size difference, but they most certainly can. Even if it's just artificial insemination.

On the other hand the plants i mentioned Cannot produce viable offspring even when artificially pollinated.

That kind over time led to many different species which are the result of different combinations of the same genes, as genetic anaysis has shown


Proof please? I am not aware of any scientific studies that show that.

Science is supposed to be about free thought, free speech and critical thinking.


This is incorrect.

Science -a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Cont.

Unfortunately because there is no way to test the existence of god (because of the very nature of the definition you apply to god) you cannot call the study of god, Intelligent Design, or Creationism Science. You cannot Observe the process of god, nor experiment to prove the existence of god.

So, yes, Free thought, free speech and critical thinking, HELP when doing science, they are not the definition of science. What i do find interesting is that in my experience with the Roman Catholic church is that Free Thought (Thinking about adultery is a sin) Free Speech (Saying "God might not exist" is blasphemy) and Critical Thinking (Asking why there is no physical evidence that supports a "Young Earth" or why the bible talks about Slavery in a positive way, is not just merely frowned upon).

I hope that helps explain why when you start to mention god people say you are not engaging in science.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (68) Jul 07, 2011
In fact only complete species are found in the fossil records, no intermediates or mutants exist as evolution requires, in order to be true


http://www.talkor...ids.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
Chihiahua and big Danes are not able to interbreed. Are they both dogs according to you?
They're quite capable of breeding. Where do you think the various "toy" varieties of Dane come from?
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
If individuals like Johannes414 still exist in the information age, it's frightening to think what selection pressures were brought to bare in his upbringing (indoctrination).
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2011
Hi Thrasymachus,

hdcjlldlskm cnkdjbv kujvkdsjfvbks uijjf jfj dfr vggg ?

Hope you got the information-message there! Be blessed.


Information: You have a keyboard capable of sending all of those letters and symbols.

Thanks for the info!

Message received!
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
O'hannis and followers I will miss.
(All have pink hair. They still have fun while living - See SH and pink hair)

:)

To all others, thks for the learning curves.
It is to be hoped that science - a real challenge - not God, does for all others, what extinction will do for O'hannis.

To O'hannis' defense, he is 145 years old and a slow learner.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2011
Evolution of information carrying mechanisms is well established Johannes.

For example:
English
Englisk
Anglisk

Anglisk: SH wtf are you on about now.
Well Anglisk is what the various Britton Tribes used to call their language. Gues what happened over time. Ah yes, information change due to replacement, creating not only a new bit of information, but an entire language dynamic, due to social selection.

Johannes, stop using a small mind and start using the rest of your ability to cognate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2011
Hi Jn,

Chihiahua and big Danes are not able to interbreed. Are they both dogs according to you?

You see, all dogs (as well as wolves, dingo, coyote and jackall) share a common gene pool that goes back to the original kind that was created by God.

That kind over time led to many different species which are the result of different combinations of the same genes, as genetic anaysis has shown. No evolution as in amoeba-to-Adam.
I do love how they make stuff up.
Science is supposed to be about free thought, free speech and critical thinking.
Haha. You do science backwards. You start with the conclusion and then develop your theories to fit. This is not science. Obviously.
Johannes, stop using a small mind and start using the rest of your ability to cognate.
Evidence suggests this ability is lacking or has been severely debilitated.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2011
If individuals like Johannes414 still exist in the information age, it's frightening to think what selection pressures were brought to bare in his upbringing (indoctrination).
This is a good point. The process of domestication selects for animals which can act counter to their natural proclivities. Dogs will prefer to hang with humans rather than other dogs and can be taught to do embarrassing tricks. This is not natural nor logical to dog sensibilities. They will also exhibit shame for doing natural things like peeing on grandmothers leg.

This is more evidence that humans have undergone a process of domestication. They have been selected for their ability to reject what comes naturally to them in favor of the irrational demands of Leaders. Religions such as xianity may have been concocted with this in mind. 'If they can accept the concepts of the trinity and mother-of-the-almighty then we know we've got a keeper. If not then their head comes off. Culled for the Common Good.'
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2011
That's a textbook definition.
What textbook has that useless definition?

Are you taking me for a creationist?
No. I am talking about meaningless noises.

Note that that definition doesn't imply that mutation and natural selection aren't the phenomena
Doesn't even admit they exist.

Allele shifts don't change a species permanently. Mutations plus selection does. I brought up Darwin and Wallace because they knew about evolution and came up with a theory for how occurred BEFORE anyone besides Mendel knew anything about genetics. Allele shifts are totally unneeded to understand that species evolve which is why it really has no business being in any useful definition.

My thought on that crappy definition is that was written to support someone doing allele frequency research and computer modeling and NOT by anyone doing fieldwork with fossils.

My Internet connection has been very erratic this month. It is annoying to be in the midst of discussion and then

Ethelred
aroc91
not rated yet Jul 11, 2011
Doesn't even admit they exist


What? Me? I'm going to be a junior in the fall continuing my pursuit of a biology degree. I'm well aware that mutation, natural selection, and evolution exist. I've done enough lab work to see it happen myself. That definiton is not in conflict with anything you've said. Evolution is the changing of the gene composition (alelle frequencies) of a population over time. Gene composition and allele frequency are interchangable. I feel as though you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2011
What? Me?
The worthless definition.

That definiton is not in conflict with anything you've said.
It just doesn't say anything useful or relevant to evolutionary theory.

Gene composition and allele frequency are interchangable.
No. Allele frequency is the percentage of any particular allele in the gene pool. Gene composition can change through mutation but that definition says NOTHING about an allele change via mutation thus it is ONLY about the frequency in the gene pool and thus worthless.

I feel as though you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
You are the one that did that. I am showing that the basis of your argument is a worthless definition. If you insist on using it in an argument on evolution you are just wasting space. It doesn't conflict with ANYTHING. The Creationists will be happy if you insist on wasting time and space that way.

It is as worthless as saying A=A.

Ethelred
aroc91
not rated yet Jul 11, 2011
All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter WHAT changes the allele frequencies. All that matters is that they've changed. Note that by saying "allele freq.", I'm NOT implying that mutation & NS ISN'T what causes it. The definition doesn't have to be long to be meaningful. I feel this sufficiently got my view across and this has gotten convoluted, so I'm done. Let's get back to what really matters.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter WHAT changes the allele frequencies.
I am saying the FREQUENCIES don't matter. It is the CHANGE in the actual code of the DNA that matters. Those changes are nearly irreversible which is quite unlike that frequency of the alleles. The white vs dark moth in England is a perfect example of how a change in the allele frequency IS NOT a change in the DNA of the species.

I'm NOT implying that mutation & NS ISN'T what causes it
It completly ignores mutation. Which is why it is such a bad attempt at a definition. It neither says anything about nor needs any mutations at all for allele frequencies to change yet actual evolution MUST have changes in the DNA. I really don't understand why you can't see this.

The definition doesn't have to be long to be meaningful.
It does have be useful. Not a worthless bit of fluff that appears to be written to appease the Creationists. They actually used a equivalent of it right here in this thread.>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
I feel this sufficiently got my view across
You did make it clear that you don't understand why that is such a worthless bit of mealy mouthed inanity and not a useful definition.

and this has gotten convoluted,
How convoluted is it to say the definition is worthless?

Let's get back to what really matters.
This DOES matter. Its a worthless, nay counterproductive, piece of crap masquerading as a useful definition.

You seem to think I am just arguing for the hell of it. I am not. I find that miserable, mealy mouthed, non functioning, incompetent, grotesquely worthless string of mistreated words to be OFFENSIVE when it is claimed to be an actual functioning definition of evolution. Please do not ever use it again, especially when there are Creationists around to jump for joy over it.

So I am curious. Just who the hell put that worthless string of words together in what book? I would like to check it out. Please please tell me it wasn't someone competent like Stephen G
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
ould or Ernst Mayer.

Ethelred

Hey I got thousand worded in the middle of good rant.

Speaking of miserable mealy mouthed crap - Brevity is SOUL FOR TWITS. An execrable excuse for cleverness from people with no sense of humour and clearly were told that the insufferably smug remark was a brilliant bit of devastating wit.

I bet they groom poodles in their spare time.

Ethelred
aroc91
not rated yet Jul 12, 2011
I am saying the FREQUENCIES don't matter. It is the CHANGE in the actual code of the DNA that matters.


I know that the frequencies themselves don't matter. The fact that they change is what matters. So what would you call a new version of a gene? An allele. Obviously, new alleles are introduced via mutation.

The white vs dark moth in England is a perfect example of how a change in the allele frequency IS NOT a change in the DNA of the species.


Initially it was. It was a mutation that created two alleles, one of which was selected for, changing the frequency of the entire moth population.

It completly ignores mutation.


I get what you're saying. I suppose I'm not thinking about it from an objective point of view, because I myself know the details well enough to make sense of the definition as is.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's worthless though. It's still correct, it's just missing what the change in genes is prompted by (which is easy enough
aroc91
not rated yet Jul 12, 2011
to look up for yourself. Wikipedia covers it quite well.)

So I am curious. Just who the hell put that worthless string of words together in what book?


It was used regarding population genetics from what I remember of Genetics: Analysis & Principles by Brooker and by every biology professor I've had. This would indeed support the fact that it's not sufficient for a layman's definition considering students taking BIO 240 know the ins and outs of it quite well.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.