Two net friends talking – or at least one straightening out the other 🙂

You’ll figure out who’s saying what…

~~~

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT UNICELLULAR CREATURES EVOLVED FROM NON-LIVING MATTER

You have been told several times that the theory of evolution is not involved with the question of non life to life. Once again you prove that you are unteachable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC TEST THAT WILL PROVE THAT THE ABOVE HAPPENED ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Abiogenesis or evolution? After all this time you still don’t seem to know the difference. It is appropriate that you continue to arrogantly put your ignorance in capitals.

GENETIC INFORMATION CAN BE REARRANGED IN A SPECIES……BUT NEW GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT BE CREATED. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How typically untruthful of you, ____. I have even cited to you your favourite Creationist source, AiG, effectively allowing that new genetic information can be generated. I quote that previous discussion, below.

On several occasions, have shown how new information can be generated, and on more than one occasion, you have completely ignored it. That makes the false claim a lie, one that is in capitals. Once again you display the ignorant and dishonest face of Creationism.

Here is a post that I issued to you around the 4th August, 2004. It repeats stuff that was that was previously ignored by you on more than one occasion. It also deals with abiogenesis. In it, you will see me quoting a previous post that you ignored. Down in there there was a little test to see if you were reading it. You only had to answer in the affirmative to show you had reached a certain point. Despite two issues, you never did. ____, if you can’t even read this stuff, then you have no business making assertions at all. As for putting them in capitals, you only shout out how stupid you are.

Because I wish to remove your excuse and because I habitually try to answer questions anyway, I will proceed to answer this _new_ question to the best of my ability. OK, so can a mutation bring about a new species even if it requires an increase in information to do so?

Unfortunately, a bit of theory is required here, however it is not terribly difficult. A DNA strand comprises of strings of A,T, C and G nucleotides. For example, a segment of a DNA strand could be GAACGCACGTTC. These are divided into codons of three nucleotides. With the above example, that would be GAA, CGC, ACG and TTC. These codons code for amino acids. The amino acids represented by the codons in the example are, Glutamic Acid, Arginine, Threonine and Phenylalanine. Though the codons could code up to 64 amino acids, there are 20 different amino acids in biological organisms. Chains of codons provide code for protein molecules (such as enzymes)[*]. The example segment is from an enzyme that contains over 400 nucleotides or over 133 codons.

* This originally contained an error, that has now been fixed.

A DNA molecule actually comprises of two parallel strands that are twisted together to form what is called a “double helix”. The corresponding nucleotide for an A nucleotide in one strand, will be a T in the other strand and vice verse. The corresponding nucleotide for a C nucleotide in one strand will be a G in the other and vice verse.

Mutations can change the DNA information. One of those types of change is ‘Point Mutation’ where a single DNA nucleotide is changed in a DNA strand. This can come about by substitution, insertion or deletion. Though the meaning of these should be fairly intuitive, I will give and example of each with the occurrences at the third nucleotide in the strand. Taking the above example segment (GAACGCACGTTC), examples of point mutation would be GAGCGCACGTTC (substitution), GAACAGCACGTTC (insertion) and GACGCACGTTC (deletion). Note that with either a deletion or an insertion the codons from that point to the end change drastically. For instance, with the above deletion, the codons (coding the amino acids) would go from {GAA CGC ACG TTC} to {GAC GCA CGT TCN}. The three-character ‘words’ extending to the end will now be very different and so must be the DNA information. This means that very new information has been created, not only at the point of the deletion, but from that point right through to the end of the DNA strand. The resulting shift of nucleotides, due to an insertion or a deletion, is called a “frame shift”.

The Nylon Bug:

Scientists in Japan discovered bacteria in a factory waste pond that actually digested nylon, a material that didn’t even exist till 1935. Further investigation showed that this was previously a sugar digesting bacterium that had been dramatically altered by a frame shift. Actually, the segment I was manipulating for illustration in the above examples was from the original sugar eating bacteria. A Creationist might argue that this was a loss of information. Well in a frame shift there is a loss of information but as have seen above, the frame shift also creates as much new information. Readers can read about the Nylon Bug at this site and see how some of its DNA ‘information’ was drastically changed by comparing what was before and what is after:

<http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm>

So let us recall ____’s’ false excuse/charge:

“ You demand of me that I should give you an answer. However, you “ will not answer how one creature can evolve into another creature “ when the genetic information is not present. That is the greater “ issue. [_____]

Well I just have, along with an example.

Aside from point mutations there are mutation that act on many nucleotides at once:

<http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Mutation>

Through ‘Inversion” a segment of the DNA strand can be turned around and read backwards. ‘Rearrangement’ can shuffle the DNA. There can also be Gene/Exon Duplications. That can be through Transpostion, where a section of DNA is able to duplicate itself and reinsert itself elsewhere in the genome, or it can be through its compliment, Retrotransposition, where the section is duplicated, reversed and reinserted elsewhere into the genome.

Then there are the large-scale chromosomal mutations. There is Translocation where an arm of one chromosome can break off and be attached to another. There is Fusion where two chromosomes fuse together to become one. There is Fission, the opposite of Fusion. There is Chromosomal Duplication where a whole chromosome is duplicated. And finally there is Genome Duplication where an entire genome is duplicated.

OK, so what is the latest Creationist position? In advising Creationists against arguing that there are no beneficial mutations, it says:

<http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp>

` Rather, we should say, ‘We have yet to find a mutation that ` increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where ` the mutation confers an advantage.’ [AiG]

So, they are denying that a mutation can bring about an increase in information. What is equally interesting, is that they are conceding that there can be beneficial mutations. But can mutations bring about new species? AiG once again concedes that it can:

` ‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true – new species ` have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an ` important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within ` the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information. [ibid]

“[K]ind” is a nice flexible biblical term preferred by the Creationists as its meaninglessness gives them lots of wiggle room. It is not used in biology for categorising fauna and flora.

So, now we have AiG conceding that mutations can be beneficial and can lead to new species. But they can’t produce *new genetic information* – or can they? In this excerpt, Sellersburg, a questioner writing to AiG points out:

<http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0311answerslive.asp>

“ Lee Spetner apparently admitted to the increase of information in B “ Cell Hypermutation in a debate with Edward E. Max. [Sellersburg to “ AiG]

In AiG’s reply to Sellersburg, they did not try to deny that Spetner admitted that mutations can cause an increase in genetic information. And they didn’t try to distance themselves from Spetner’s agreement. They argued that Spetner answered this by pointing out that this increase in information had nothing to do with evolution:

` Then you should be aware of Spetner’s reply to Max. Max’s example is ` totally irrelevant to evolution, because it’s a particular small ` designed mutational hotspot, so it can churn out many different ` antibodies that merely have to find something in the antigen to ` target. The mutations that find the antigen are reproduced. [AiG to ` Sellerburg]

Max’s correspondence to Spetner, to which Sellerburg and AiG referred, can be found here:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html>

It contains Spetner’s agreement:

“ Although the somatic mutations to which Max referred are point “ mutations that do indeed add information to the genome of the B “ cells, they cannot be applied to Darwinian evolution. [Spetner]

So where does that leave us? AiG is allowing that mutations can be advantageous and can lead to new species and can cause an increase in genetic information. The last, of course, is in contradiction with what AiG maintains above, where they say that mutations can’t lead to an increase in genetic information.

So here is my question to _____. If a mutation that causes a loss of information can be beneficial and can produce another species, don’t you think it is brave to claim that a mutation that adds information CAN’T be beneficial and CAN’T produce another species? If not, why not? While pondering this, keep in mind the Nylon Bug and the frame shift, where a loss of information may equally be regarded as an acquisition of new information.

One way that Creationists allow themselves wiggle room to say that speciation can come through loss of information but not through addition of information, is to find ways of calling gains or changes of information, losses of information.

If you won’t answer that, at least answer this. Have you even read my answer on genetic information that you demanded? If you have, then can you quote this and answer in the affirmative. It will show that you have at least reached this point.

[Note, _____ never did respond to this. It is fairly obvious that she doesn’t even read posts that refute her ‘scientific’ claims]

Note that is the above, “Chains of codons form protein molecules (such as enzymes)” has had been amended, in brackets, to say, “Chains of codons provide code for protein molecules (such as enzymes).”

Though she demanded it, _____ never gave any indication that she read any of that. Now by submitting the same point again, with wording that would suggest it is introductory (another head banger), _____ has further confirmed her exasperating creationist disregard for answers she receives.

I will add some more about ‘new information’ and the Nylon bug. As I said above, this organism went from being a sugar eating bacterium to a one that digested nylon. Look at how it happened and how new information evolved:

OLD INFORMATION:

Nucleotides: … CGA GAA CGC ACG TTC CAC CGG CCA G…

Resulting Amino Acids: … Arg Glu Arg Thr Phe His Arg Pro

The grouping of three nucleotides (A,C,G & T) forms codons which provide code for amino acids. Chain of amino acids form proteins.

Now look what happens if we start with the second nucleotide (A) in the second codon (GAA):

NEW INFORMATION:

Nucleotides: T AAC GCA CGT TCC ACC GGC CAG

Resulting Amino Acids: Met AsN Ala ArG Ser Thr Gly Gln

The T is a thymine nucleotide; it indicates the start of a protein.

Note that the A, C, G & T nucleotides, though they have only shifted one nucleotide place with respect to the above chain, now have a new and entirely different chain of codons coding for different amino Arginine, Threonine, Phenylalanine, Histidine, Arginine and Proline to Asparagine, Alanine, Arginine, Serine, Threonine, Glycine and Glutamine.

So, Even though only one nucleotide was dropped out, this caused a frame shift that transformed all the subsequent codons (nucleotide triplets). The information then became significantly different and therefore NEW.

(4. continued) . . . . It must also be remembered that even a unicellular organism is very complex within itself, indicating that it was created, not formed by some chance rearrangement of a previous substance. [_____]

Here is a site that deals with abiogenesis:

< http://www.colorado.edu/epob/epob1220cornwall/Spring_2001/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE.htm

You are talking about abiogenesis there, life from non-life. Though we may never know exactly how it happened, there is no point in trying to deny the likelihood on the basis of probability because even if one invokes God as the mechanism, it has happened. That is a given. We and all other life forms are arrangements of chemical substances. The problem for the creationist is that by invoking an infinitely complex God from nothing is that he/she hasn’t eased the probabilistic problem at all. No matter how complex a simple cell is, it could hardly be more complex than the alleged creator of the universe. Now matter how strange is the occurrence of simple life from non-life – which we know has occurred – it is infinitesimal when compared to an infinitely complex entity from nothing! We can witness non-life making up life every day. We know our chemical composition down to the last element. Not so with God. The only God from nothing we see every day is the God that still looks like nothing.

The Problem of abiogenesis is actually broken into four smaller problems. They are:

1. Organic substances coming from inorganic monomers. 2. Polymers coming from monomers. 3. The development of the membrane. 4. Reproduction through DNA.

The first step has been duplicated in a laboratory in 1952. A vapour of ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water was subjected to electric sparks. After about a week, organic compounds were formed including many amino acids. This could not naturally happen in earth’s atmosphere today, but there is evidence that in the past conditions were much more conducive. The second and third steps have also been shown in a laboratory to be not too difficult an occurrence. The next problem (4.) is greater. DNA is required for protein synthesis and protein synthesis is required for DNA. To answer this problem, some scientists have suggested that RNA, which ordinarily acts as the go-between, used to not only perform the go-between role but also did what is now the DNA’s job of storing the information (catalytic role). In fact, in 1980 it was shown that some RNA could act as a catalyst. The above site provides more details. The diagrams from the following site might also be useful:

<http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~arabian/mcb3020s/lecture27.PDF>

That then brings up the question of how did the previous substance come into existence. [______}

There wasn’t a time before matter, so matter didn’t actually _come_ into existence from nothing. Anyway you are back to the same problem. If you challenge on how could matter possibly just be, you have to answer how could God possibly just be. We know there is matter. Occam’s Razor screams at us to avoid the awfully poor parsimony of trying to explain something amazing, that we can see, with something infinitely more amazing that we can’t see (something that is completely undetectable). It only increases the expense of explanation.