6days writes:
Yes... we do see storms ( not as complex as a seed which you called simple).
Barbarian is skeptical:
Sounds unlikely. Let's see you numbers. Prediction: 6days is making up stories again, and will not show us the relative complexity of these two things.
Prediction confirmed:
6days declines to support his odd claim:
I know you want us to believe it, but since you've declined to provide any evidence for that (a second time), we can safely conclude you're just blowing smoke.
(6days denies the Creator in favor of a "designer")
No sign of design. God is still the best answer for why all of this exists. Nice try, though.
We're still waiting for you to show us that a hurricane has less information than a seed. Do you suppose anyone here doesn't know why you won't do that?
6days gets part of it right:
And preservation. This is why a new and useful mutation can rapidly spread through a population. If it gives the organisms having it an advantage over the old genome, it produces a new and different population. So it's both.
Thank you. As you learned some time ago, natural selection, by choosing the alleles available in each generation, produces evolutionary novelty. Would you like me to show you some more of that?
This is why a new and useful mutation can rapidly spread through a population.
If that were true, fitness would decline in a population, but we see just the opposite. If it were not for natural selection, this would not be true. But natural selection is a fact.
If a mutation doesn't negatively affect fitness, natural selection cannot detect it. Whenever a mutation does affect fitness, natural selection tends to remove it. You're between a rock and a hard place again. If it reduces fitness, natural selection removes it. If natural selection doesn't see it, then it doesn't reduce fitness.
6days tries again:
Barbarian chuckles:
No, you got that wrong, too. For example, Tibetans are much more fit to live at high altitudes than their Chinese ancestors.
Nope. There would be no need whatever for it, unless you were living at high altitudes. The current allele is unknown in Denisovans, although the gene did exist in that population in a different allele. The same gene exists in Chinese populations, but not the allele that Tibetans have, which evolved after Tibetans diverged from Chinese.
Now, an international team of researchers has sequenced the EPAS1 gene in 40 Tibetans and 40 Han Chinese. Both were once part of the same population that split into two groups sometime between 2750 to 5500 years ago. Population geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, his postdoc Emilia Huerta-Sanchez, and their colleagues analyzed the DNA and found that the Tibetans and only two of the 40 Han Chinese had a distinctive segment of the EPAS1 gene in which five letters of the genetic code were identical. When they searched the most diverse catalog of genomes from people around the world in the 1000 Genomes Project, they could not find a single other living person who had the same code.
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human
They both have the EPAS1 gene; but the particular allele that mutated to provide high-altitude suvival didn't appear until the Tibetans diverged from other Han Chinese. And there you are. Favorable mutation. There are many others. Would you like to learn about some more of them?
6days tries another unsupported assertion:
There are some relatively rare mutations which have beneficial outcomes....Most, if not all mutations with a beneficial outcome have destroyed pre-existing information.
Barbarian chuckles:
But you don't even know what "information" is, or even how to calculate it. So you're just waving your hands, hoping that your new vocabulary will impress us.
I know you think just using the word makes you believable, but so far, every time you've been asked to support your claim, you dodge.
And we all know why. You don't know what "information" is, or even how to calculate it.
Claude Shannon first applied it to biological systems. And today, population geneticists use it to measure information in populations.
Claude Shannon founded information theory in the 1940s. The theory has long been known to be closely related to thermodynamics and physics through the similarity of Shannon's uncertainty measure to the entropy function. Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538977/
6days tries again:
Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. In fact, it's usually from a gene duplication, which leaves the old enzyme intact while producing a new one. C'mon, you've been shown that, too.
Sorry, that's not what a gene duplication is. Are you beginning to realize that not knowing what you're talking about, can be a handicap?
Sort of the way that Tibetans are more fit only in terms of the environment in which they live. That's how evolution works. It fits populations to specific environments.
Again, not knowing what you're talking about, is holding you back from understanding.
Yes... we do see storms ( not as complex as a seed which you called simple).
Barbarian is skeptical:
Sounds unlikely. Let's see you numbers. Prediction: 6days is making up stories again, and will not show us the relative complexity of these two things.
Prediction confirmed:
6days declines to support his odd claim:
I know you want us to believe it, but since you've declined to provide any evidence for that (a second time), we can safely conclude you're just blowing smoke.
(6days denies the Creator in favor of a "designer")
No sign of design. God is still the best answer for why all of this exists. Nice try, though.
We're still waiting for you to show us that a hurricane has less information than a seed. Do you suppose anyone here doesn't know why you won't do that?
6days gets part of it right:
And preservation. This is why a new and useful mutation can rapidly spread through a population. If it gives the organisms having it an advantage over the old genome, it produces a new and different population. So it's both.
Thank you. As you learned some time ago, natural selection, by choosing the alleles available in each generation, produces evolutionary novelty. Would you like me to show you some more of that?
This is why a new and useful mutation can rapidly spread through a population.
If that were true, fitness would decline in a population, but we see just the opposite. If it were not for natural selection, this would not be true. But natural selection is a fact.
If a mutation doesn't negatively affect fitness, natural selection cannot detect it. Whenever a mutation does affect fitness, natural selection tends to remove it. You're between a rock and a hard place again. If it reduces fitness, natural selection removes it. If natural selection doesn't see it, then it doesn't reduce fitness.
6days tries again:
Barbarian chuckles:
No, you got that wrong, too. For example, Tibetans are much more fit to live at high altitudes than their Chinese ancestors.
Nope. There would be no need whatever for it, unless you were living at high altitudes. The current allele is unknown in Denisovans, although the gene did exist in that population in a different allele. The same gene exists in Chinese populations, but not the allele that Tibetans have, which evolved after Tibetans diverged from Chinese.
Now, an international team of researchers has sequenced the EPAS1 gene in 40 Tibetans and 40 Han Chinese. Both were once part of the same population that split into two groups sometime between 2750 to 5500 years ago. Population geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, his postdoc Emilia Huerta-Sanchez, and their colleagues analyzed the DNA and found that the Tibetans and only two of the 40 Han Chinese had a distinctive segment of the EPAS1 gene in which five letters of the genetic code were identical. When they searched the most diverse catalog of genomes from people around the world in the 1000 Genomes Project, they could not find a single other living person who had the same code.
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human
They both have the EPAS1 gene; but the particular allele that mutated to provide high-altitude suvival didn't appear until the Tibetans diverged from other Han Chinese. And there you are. Favorable mutation. There are many others. Would you like to learn about some more of them?
6days tries another unsupported assertion:
There are some relatively rare mutations which have beneficial outcomes....Most, if not all mutations with a beneficial outcome have destroyed pre-existing information.
Barbarian chuckles:
But you don't even know what "information" is, or even how to calculate it. So you're just waving your hands, hoping that your new vocabulary will impress us.
I know you think just using the word makes you believable, but so far, every time you've been asked to support your claim, you dodge.
And we all know why. You don't know what "information" is, or even how to calculate it.
Claude Shannon first applied it to biological systems. And today, population geneticists use it to measure information in populations.
Claude Shannon founded information theory in the 1940s. The theory has long been known to be closely related to thermodynamics and physics through the similarity of Shannon's uncertainty measure to the entropy function. Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538977/
6days tries again:
Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. In fact, it's usually from a gene duplication, which leaves the old enzyme intact while producing a new one. C'mon, you've been shown that, too.
Sorry, that's not what a gene duplication is. Are you beginning to realize that not knowing what you're talking about, can be a handicap?
Sort of the way that Tibetans are more fit only in terms of the environment in which they live. That's how evolution works. It fits populations to specific environments.
Again, not knowing what you're talking about, is holding you back from understanding.
