Evolution thread.

A mutation does not add information the information is already there. That is why the organism that seems simple actually has more genetic combinations. It is all in the order the code is expressed. It is all in the arrangement of the code. CATG. The order of these letters makes protien.

 

So there's a genetic limit.

- - - Updated - - -

So how did a single cell evolved into a human without adding new information?

 

The mutation to allow adults to digest milk IS an addition. It wasn't there before. Now it is there.

Maybe I don't understand what you're asking here.

You can point to any body part or plant feature and that is an addition that came through the processes of evolution to add information.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you just getting snarky? I don't remember saying anything about things that are incapable of procreation.

 

I never said you can get a put bred. What you can do is make it look like one of the breeds mixed in.

 

Cool!

I'd suggest care in accepting circumstantial evidence, of course.

What can you find out about "goose bumps"?

 

Well, the order of the base pairs is how information is encoded. You can think of those as letters. And, mutation does cause the number of letters to change.

Think about it as if it is a book. Reordering the letters will create new words - an addition of totally new information.

We have more letters than Apes. And, there are animals that have many times the number of letters that humans have.

 

So as far as you know, lactose tolerance is an entirely beneficial mutation.

And if another mutation changes one of those genes, wouldn't you have more information than just double existing information?

Since humans were not around millions of years ago when these families diverged, that is not at all surprising.

Your article misses the point completely. Whether they have function or not, the fact that two organisms share orthologous ERVs, with the same mutations, is evidence that they share a common ancestor. That these orthologous ERVs share the same hierarchical relationship that we see through morphology only confirms the Theory of Evolution.

 

Yes. I pointed that out. This is the difference between phenotype and genotype. Phenotype is simply what the life form looks and acts like - observable characteristics.

You can run a breeding program that may take a very long time, but could result in a dog that looks like a cat - a significant change in phenotype. However, interbreeding would be just as impossible as it ever was, maybe even more so. And, if you bred a mutt to look like a golden retriever it would still be trivial to tell them apart by comparing genes.


But, you can't do that with genotype. Something bred from Cheetahs is never going to interbreed with something bred from a house cat. The enormous size of the genome, amazing complexity and requirement of exactness just won't allow for that.

 

That is my point. The information is already there. It is the order of the letters that changes. Just like the order of letters make words. The letters are all there. The order of the letters is what changes the organism.

 

That is a gross misunderstand of information theory. The sequence "ABCDABCDABCDABCDABCD" carries much less information that the sequence "ACBADCBDABCCDCADBACB". If each sequence of four letters represents a protein, then the first sequence can only produce one protein while the second sequence can produce five different proteins.

 

If evolution were constrained to information already in existence, it would be a huge problem for evolution.

It's important to note that mutations can and do add information that did not ever exist before.

In fact, mutations have changed the number of chromosomes - making room for massive amounts of totally new information that never existed before.

 

Define "look like." IMHO, you can't.

 

They're used to help regulate temperature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_bumps

http://creation.mobi/vestigial-arguments-remnants-of-evolution

 

No it's a mutation of an existing feature which fails to turn off the ability to digest milk.

Bacteria to human. You'll need to add something to make that process work.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, I just assumed.

 

Well, there is a movement saying that milk is actually bad for you. I'm still going to eat pizza and Mac n' cheese though.

http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/

It depends, does it subtract from that gene or make it neutral?

So proof by lack of evidence.

Wait, isn't that like saying if two houses got destroyed by the same hurricane that mean they had a common ancestor?

- - - Updated - - -

This proving that there is a genetic limit.

- - - Updated - - -

There are mutts that look like a specific breed like a lab.

 

Your cites don't agree with you.

- - - Updated - - -

So, NOW you agree with me that it is a mutation.

Case closed.

 

I said:

That does NOT imply a limit - in fact, it is the opposite.

The STUPENDOUS openness and extensibility of the genetic model is so great that bringing a Cheetah genus in line with a house cat genus would be impossible.

The problem YOU face is that the way genetics and evolution work is TOO LIMITLESS.

You would be breeding in order to try to come up with different numbers of CHROMOSOMES for crying out loud. And, not even that is good enough, as you would need the gigantic number of genes to be distributed over those chromosomes in the same way and even in the same order.

Plus, over the time required there would be opportunity for all sorts of other mutations that match neither cat nor Cheetah.

 

How so?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't I disagreed with that, however just in case yes it is a mutation but it doesn't add information.

 

Because they lack the genetic makeup to do so. There genes are incompatible with house cats.

Which don't add information.

 

You're losing yourself in terminology here.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still failing middle school biology.

You need to pass that course before you start trying to tackle evolution.

 

A Cellular Mutation adds Genetic Information to the cell upon an Molecular/Atomic Level.

AA

 

Yes indeed.

I'm not sure what his issue is on this one.

Maybe he has a weirdly constrained view of what information is. That was my guess when I proposed that problem he's having is a terminology issue.

Maybe he doesn't realize that in sexual reproduction all the kid gets is half of the information of the father and half of the information of the mother. Sometimes he seems to think a living thing has all the info from all past species or something, and mutations just select what is used and what is not used.

He keeps looking at his religion sites, and their very purpose is to twist science to conform to some interpretation of the Bible - so it gets pathetic.

 

Three letters make a codon. And that is a code for an amino acid. Amino acids make up protiens. You also have a start and stop codon.

 

The information is in the sequence of the letters. To my knowledge no letters are added to the code. It is the "spelling" of the "words" that make an organism seem more complex. But to my knowledge no letter is added to the organism from single cell to human. If someone knows different please inform me. I am simply saying the letters are there and no no new letters are added.

 

Humans have added letters in the lab....Nature has not.