2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

[revelarts]

DNA addition can happen in mechanisms of Gene Duplication, Vertical Gene Transfer and according to Shannon-Weaver information theory.

correct me if I'm wrong but
Duplication is not NEW information
Transfer is not new information. (where'd the original source get it? )

And Did a quick look at the Shannon weaver information theory and there's nothing there that i see that assume new information rising from a source. it seems it expect noise to interfere with the original information. which is what we see when thing like birth defects and deliterious mutations the genetic code/information is NOT transferred well.

so no we have no experimental evidence of New information. It's assumed by evolution.

[pete311]

correct me if I'm wrong but
Duplication is not NEW information
Transfer is not new information. (where'd the original source get it? )

And Did a quick look at the Shannon weaver information theory and there's nothing there that i see that assume new information rising from a source. it seems it expect noise to interfere with the original information. which is what we see when thing like birth defects and deliterious mutations the genetic code/information is NOT transferred well.

so no we have no experimental evidence of New information. It's assumed by evolution.

If you look at the concepts and not just assume based on the name you'll see. I can explain, but it's dinner time. I will be back late tonight or tomorrow.

[pete311]

Just ran across this

Human DNA enlarges mouse brains
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...s-mouse-brains

[revelarts]

Just ran across this

Human DNA enlarges mouse brains
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...s-mouse-brains

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

But in general the experiments are weird, trying to breed smarter mice , just what the world needs.

[darin]

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

But in general the experiments are weird, trying to breed smarter mice , just what the world needs.

Just kinda shows a designer is required.

[pete311]

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460548/

The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10629003

Ohno's dilemma: Evolution of new genes under continuous selection

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/

Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/


I found a few studies in a few minutes. There must be hundreds to choose from if I had the time.


btw, after some reading I came across this interesting quote

You also have to be careful that advanced, evolved, complex doesn't necessarily mean more information.

Mammals have relatively few genes compared to 'more primitive' (whatever that means) organisms. One reason is that they have a very constant body temperature so generally only need one chemical pathway to manufacture each protein.
Cold blooded animals and especially amphibians often need a dozen different ways of synthesizing the same molecule depending on body and ambient temperature, environment etc. All these pathways need many more genes to code for the proteins and enzymes required.

And of course animals that have a larval stage need 2 or 3 "complete" genomes for different phases of their lives.

[revelarts]

none of that is talking about new information
except that last quote that says you don't need new information.

"And of course animals that have a larval stage need 2 or 3 "complete" genomes for different phases of their lives."


the simple creatures we came from and are found FAR EARLIER in the fossil record are MORE complex with 2 or 3 more genomes than we advanced creatures have, sooo that's "of course " evidence FOR evolution?! ....from the simple to the complex??


the doublethink here is piling up

Look before the genone projects evolutionary scientist where SURE that the "lower " creatures would have fewer genes than the "higher" ones. it was to be another EVIDENCE for evolution.

but they were "shocked" "surprised" etc to find more genes in some very "simple" creatures. less in "modern'. And again "shocked" "surprised" to find the same numbers and kinds of genes across lines of animals they never imagined would have similar genome properties or number counts.

but is that failed prediction consdiered a strike against the theory? what? of course not!

Just as the science went against Darwin's prediction that the cell would be found to be a "simple" structure, a glob like thing.

failed prediction

and evolutionary scientist expected to find useless parts of genes and thought they found them and used them as evidence for evolution. But now know better since after observational science work it seems there are no useless genes.

another failed prediction
but they say again, that it doesn't mater, It's just evolved somehow to use everything.

so again with each new discovery that goes AGAINST evolutionary PREDICTIONS the evolutionary story just changes to shoe horn in the new data. make up a NEW STORY.

So now the evolutionary scientist foundational prediction that a creatures do randomly by environmental pressures do mutate NEW information in the genes to develop a wing, a liver, a new muscle, a fingernail, an eye, a tongue, photosynthesis, water resistant skin, camouflage, etc etc. THAT DOESN"T HAPPEN like they predicted.... or at all.... except in the dim unseen past we're sure.... but it doesn't matter if it looks impossible today.
The BELIEF that it's It's still evolved somekindaway is not doubted.

it appears unfalsifiable

[pete311]

none of that is talking about new information

Either you didn't read the abstracts or can't comprehend them or you have some non traditional definition of information.

I don't understand any of the gibberish ramblings of the rest of your post