|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2004 : 15:20:49
|
I will be using the Nylon Bug (sp. flavobacterium) as my final argument. The production of a new enzyme with novel function due to an insertional, frame shift mutation is a strong argument that evolution can create new information. Also, this mutation allowed the flavobacterium to adapt to a niche that has only existed for about 50 years. This also shows how a beneficial mutation can quickly spread, albeit by clonal reproduction, through a population through natural selection. I can then tie this in with common ancestory (ERVs) and change in morphology (middle ear evolution) by arguing that random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing novel features that are passed on to subsequent generations.
Info on nylon bug: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Any suggestions welcomed.
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 21:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Sounds good Peptide. I'm looking forward to reading your finished products!
I can't say I'm hopefull that you'll be treated fairly over at the "skeptictimes".... but hey :) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 07:15:32 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Peptide. Glad you're giving lots of thought to this debate, but I wonder if using all three of your allotted posts to examples is the best way to go. Shouldn't you devote an initial post (or final post, or whatever) to the overall idea (for lack of a better term) of evolution? By this (and note: my knowledge of evolution comes from some high school science and the bit reading, e.g. Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, and that's about it...) I mean introducing:
a) The fossile record-- fossil remains present a clear picture that life on earth has not been constant, but rather that it has changed (or, if you will, evolved). This works in both directions; life forms have become extinct, while others have appeared.
This is irrefutable. A world-wide flood cannot explain the uniformity of the fossile record; why are mammals "above" dinosaurs in all attested examples? Fluid dynamics does not explain this, nor does some contrived notion that mammals could climb higher up mountains, etc. to avoid drowning.
b) Mechanisms for change-- one you establish that life on earth has not been constant, you have to ask why. A creationist is forced to posit magic, which falls outside the realm of science (once the notion of magic comes into play, the debate is effectively over). A scientist will look for naturalistic means. Concepts like mutation and selective pressures come into play (here, your examples can be used, or at least alluded to).
c) Age of the earth-- you might also want to bring this up, since the Skeptictimes people (or person, if you subscribe to that theory  ) seem to be YEC. Archaeology can even be used to cast serious doubt on the 6,000-year old earth theory, at least if one is also going to hold to other Genesis tales, such as the origin of multiple languages.
So these migh be some ways to introduce everything, and then launch into examples to back up the general concepts.
Just a thought...  |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 08:52:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hey, Peptide. Glad you're giving lots of thought to this debate, but I wonder if using all three of your allotted posts to examples is the best way to go. Shouldn't you devote an initial post (or final post, or whatever) to the overall idea (for lack of a better term) of evolution? By this (and note: my knowledge of evolution comes from some high school science and the bit reading, e.g. Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, and that's about it...) I mean introducing:
I will include an introduction that will focus on defining the scientific method and the definition of evolution. I will also include a summary which ties all three pieces of evidence together.
quote:
a) The fossile record--
This will be covered by the evolution of the mammalian middle ear as it is seen in the fossil record. I will also argue that this can be counted as the evolution of an IC system. A potential falsification is that the synapsid mammals could be found in strata predating any dinosaur which would falsify the theory of evolution. Therefore, this piece of evidence is testable and falsifiable.
quote:
b) Mechanisms for change--
This is where I use the nylon bug, the production of a novel protein with novel enzymatic properties (random mutation) that took over a niche previously left open (natural selection). This also covers the argument "no new information in evolution" which creationists like to trot out once in a while.
quote:
c) Age of the earth--
This is a theory within geology, not biology. I want to focus on biology and save the age of the earth arguments for the rebuttal portion of the debate. If the age of the earth is challenged then I can fight back with large amounts of evidence, such as the Hawaiian Islands, lake varves, ice layers, the non-existence of radioisotopes with a short half life, etc.
quote:
So these migh be some ways to introduce everything, and then launch into examples to back up the general concepts.
I am only allowed three pieces of evidence, so I have to be selective. I have elected to support the biological theory of evolution using arguments in the realm of common ancestory (HERV), change in the fossil record (mammalian middle ear), and molecular biology (nylon bug). With only three things to work with I had to try and cover all my bases in a logical manner, which I hope I have done.
Thanks for the suggestions. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 09:35:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is a theory within geology, not biology. I want to focus on biology and save the age of the earth arguments for the rebuttal portion of the debate. If the age of the earth is challenged then I can fight back with large amounts of evidence, such as the Hawaiian Islands, lake varves, ice layers, the non-existence of radioisotopes with a short half life, etc.
The best evidence I think for age of the Earth is given through fossil craters:
quote:
Thus, we have a most excellent test between the two viewpoints. If the earth's geologic record is the result of many hundreds of millions of years of slow accumulation, then we would expect a fair number of "fossil" craters. On the other hand, if the geologic column was laid down in a mere year by Noah's flood, then it would be extremely unlikely to find even one "fossil" crater.
Well, I won't keep you in suspense. The geologic record contains at least 130 positively identified "fossil" craters, and they are found from the Precambrian (2 billion years ago) to Recent times.
R. A. F. Grieve and P. B. Robertson (1979) list the known meteorite craters. Since 1979 a considerable number of fossil craters have been found, but a portion of their list will do just fine. With one exception, all of the following are larger than Meteor Crater in Arizona.
Precambrian .....Vredefort, South Africa............. 1.97 billion years
Precambrian .....Sudbury, Ontario, Canada............ 1.84 billion years
Precambrian......Janisjarvi, Russia.................. 0.70 billion years
Cambrian ........Kelly West, N.T., Australia.......... 550 million years
Cambrian.........Holleford, Ontario, Canada........... 550 million years
Cambrian ........Kjardla, Estonia..................... 500 million years
Ordovician.......Saaksjarvi, Finland.................. 490 million years
Ordovician.......Carswell, Saskatchewan, Canada....... 485 million years
Ordovician.......Brent, Ontario, Canada............... 450 million years
Silurian.........Lac Couture, Quebec, Canada.......... 420 million years
Silurian.........Lac La Moinerie, Quebec, Canada...... 400 million years
Devonian.........Siljan, Sweden....................... 365 million years
Devonian.........Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada........... 360 million years
Devonian.........Flynn Creek, Tennessee, USA.......... 360 million years
Carboniferous....Crooked Creek, Missouri, USA......... 320 million years
Carboniferous....Middlesboro, Kentucky, USA........... 300 million years
Carboniferous....Serpent Mound, Ohio, USA............. 300 million years
Permian..........Kursk, Russia........................ 250 million years
Permian..........Dellen, Sweden....................... 230 million years
Permian..........St. Martin, Manitoba, Canada......... 225 million years
Triassic.........Manicouagan, Quebec, Canada.......... 210 million years
Triassic.........Redwing Creek, North Dakota, USA..... 200 million years
Jurassic.........Vepriaj, Lithuania................... 160 million years
Jurassic.........Rochechouart, France................. 160 million years
Jurassic.........Strangways, N.T., Australia.......... 150 million years
Cretaceous.......Sierra Madre, Texas, USA............. 100 million years
Cretaceous.......Rotmistrovka, Ukraine................. 70 million years
Cretaceous.......Chicxulub, Yucatan, Mexico............ 65 million years
Paleocene........Kara, Russia.......................... 57 million years
Oligocene........Mistastin, Labrador, Canada........... 38 million years
Oligocene........Wanapitei L., Ontario, Canada......... 38 million years
Miocene..........Haughton Dome, N.W.T., Canada......... 15 million years
Miocene..........Karla, Russia......................... 10 million years
Pliocene.........New Quebec Crater, New Quebec, Canada.. 5 m.y.
Pliocene.........Aouelloul, Mauritania.................. 3.1 m.y.
Pleistocene......Bosumtwi, Ghana........................ 1.3 m.y.
Pleistocene......Lonar, India........................... 0.05 m.y.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 10/13/2004 09:35:45 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 09:50:21 [Permalink]
|
I am afraid this debate will have the fundies asking us to expalin side by side man and dinosaurs tracks as 'proven' by Hovind, and discount the real scientific evidence presented by peptide.
But it doesn't really matter because this debate has generated some outstanding scientific information that at least I was not aware of. I feel that this whole exercise, regardless of the outcome, has been a wonderful oppotunity for me to learn more about the natural world.
Thanks for everyones inputs into this debate.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 10:00:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
this debate has generated some outstanding scientific information that at least I was not aware of. I feel that this whole exercise, regardless of the outcome, has been a wonderful oppotunity for me to learn more about the natural world.
Couldn't agree more. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 10:14:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am afraid this debate will have the fundies asking us to expalin side by side man and dinosaurs tracks as 'proven' by Hovind, and discount the real scientific evidence presented by peptide.
Hell, even a dummy like me can put the tracks bullshit to rest. The only thing Hovind's ever 'proved' is that his jawbone is in good, working order and his nose doesn't run snot into it while he's demonstrating the skill. Not too shabby, when you think about it.
As I recall, it is Carl Baugh who is the dino/human track authority. I don't know if his nose infects his speech, or not. No matter. He's another PhD wannabe with a slightly confused but rabid following.
I agree, however the debate turns out, we here are the winners for the info aquired.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 15:58:00 [Permalink]
|
Comedy Central USED to have a Daily Show interview with that nut..... was freakin hilarious.
Seems to be gone from their website however.... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 10:09:10 [Permalink]
|
This is the first draft of the nylon bug argument. Suggestions appreciated.
---------------------
Evolution of New Information: The Nylon Bug
In order for evolution to proceed it needs a source of variation to work from. This source is called random mutation, a process that creates new proteins and therefore new information in the genome. By new information I mean new, novel, or modified proteins that differs from what the organism had before. The order of the letters in DNA means nothing if the protein it produces has no function or is not beneficial. In fact, when looking at new DNA sequences scientists translate the DNA sequence into protein form and then compare this hypothetical protein to other proteins of known function. From this, they are able to assign hypothetical functions to the unknown protein, not due to the sequence of DNA but to the proposed protein function. Therefore, it is not useful to look for information at the DNA level but rather at the protein level.
The randomness of mutations does not mean that each nucleotide in the genome has the same chance of being changed. Instead, when a mutation occurs it shows no preference towards being a neutral, beneficial, or detrimental mutation. That is, a mutation is not caused in order to produce a beneficial gene. No one, to my knowledge, has ever shown a certain mutation arising in a majority of organisms when faced with the same environment. If beneficial mutations were programmed then this is what we would expect to see, the same mutation occurring at once in a number of organisms in the same species.
A great example of a beneficial mutation giving rise to new information is the “nylon bug”, a species of flavobacterium that acquired the ability to live on nylon derivatives as the sole source of food. This ability is directly attributed to a frame shift mutation in one of it's plasmids giving rise to the gene nylC. A frame shift mutation is caused by the insertion of a single nucleotide which completely changes the amino acid sequence of the protein downstream of the insertion. This is due to the way in which DNA is translated into proteins. Ignoring RNA for the moment, each amino acid is defined by a codon, a group of three DNA nucleotides. The specific frame shift mutation in the nylon bug is seen below:
The pre-mutation sequence is on top, the post-mutation sequence is on the bottom
From: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
As you can see, the amino acid sequence changed from glutamine, arginine, threonine, phenalalanine . . . to asparagine, alanine, arginine, serine . . . This is quite a change, all due to the insertion of a single nucleotide.
The importance of this insertion is due to the protein it produced. This new protein has a novel enzymatic property, an ability not found in bacterial strains that have the same plasmid. This activity is called 6-aminohexanoic-acid-oligomer hydrolase, a fancy name for an enzyme that cleaves off the end of nylon derivatives used in nylon production. The piece that is cleaved off of the nylon derivative is then fed into the bacteria's metabolic system and it is able to get chemical energy from it. It is worth mentioning that nylon derivatives do not exist in nature, and have only been produced by man since 1935. Therefore, there is no reason for the nylon bug to have this gene before 1935.
Now, you may ask how this certain type of bacteria was found. In a factory in Japan a scientist observed bacteria growing in a vat that held waste products from the manufacturing of nylon. This scientist was quite amazed since common bacterial food was not present which led to the discovery of the enzyme in question. Therefore, the acquisition of this mutation is considered beneficial in an environment where the only source of carbon is nylon derivatives. This is evolution in action; the formation of new information in the form of the nylonase |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 11:25:06 [Permalink]
|
Peptide wrote:quote:
Suggestions appreciated.
It's a good piece. My main suggestion is that since you don't have much time left, run with it.
You are going to add some introductory and concluding words to the three main sections, yes? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 12:59:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Peptide wrote:quote:
Suggestions appreciated.
It's a good piece. My main suggestion is that since you don't have much time left, run with it.
You are going to add some introductory and concluding words to the three main sections, yes?
I agree. I went over everything and added a short intro and conclusion. I wish I had another week (like JD does) but at least its done. Right now I am waiting for the ok on the pics I am using. I persued the "rules" and noticed that all pics had to be ok'ed before they could be used. Sent a list of the pics to tk asking for his ok. Thanks for all the help, you will all get an acknowledgement. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 13:14:45 [Permalink]
|
Peptide as a bonus throw in the fact that Topic A is genetics and has thousands of other examples in genetics support evolution and none of them do not, Topic B is zoology/palentology and has thousands of other examples in zoology/palentology support evolution and none of them do not. Topic C is ....
That and have responses for the standard arguements about Theory, Fossid Record, and Scientists not supporting evolution (The Notre Dame engineers survey problem) oh and an explination that the reason many do not believe "Darwinian evolution" is that there are newer more complete evolutionary theorys that darwin was not aware of. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 13:41:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Peptide as a bonus throw in the fact that Topic A is genetics and has thousands of other examples in genetics support evolution and none of them do not, Topic B is zoology/palentology and has thousands of other examples in zoology/palentology support evolution and none of them do not. Topic C is ....
I don't say this directly, but I do mention in my conclusion that no data thus far has falsified evolution. I also mention that the evidence I do mention is only a small part of the total evidence available.
quote:
That and have responses for the standard arguements about Theory, Fossid Record, and Scientists not supporting evolution (The Notre Dame engineers survey problem) oh and an explination that the reason many do not believe "Darwinian evolution" is that there are newer more complete evolutionary theorys that darwin was not aware of.
I thought about this and added the following sentences to the conclusion:
"Nowhere do I rely on quotes from scientists, but instead research based on real data. The opinions of a scientist mean nothing unless you can also show the data upon which they base their conclusions."
Hopefully this will prevent quote mining in the creationist post. However, putting creationist quote mines into context usually does a good job of revealing the amount of deception that is required to uphold pseudoscience.
|
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 14:22:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
(The Notre Dame engineers survey problem)
I'm afraid i'm not familiar with this phrase. Could someone elaborate?
For the rest i think the nylon bug argument looks very good. I'm just worried that someone will bring up some bizarre theory of information that somehow disqualifies this as an increase in information. |
Miss Tick sniffed. 'You could say this piece of advice is pricesless', she said. 'Are you listening?'
'Yes' said Tiffany.
'Good now...If you trust in yourself.."
'Yes..?'
'..and believe in your dreams...'
'yes?'
'...and follow your star..' Miss Tick went on.
'Yes?'
'You'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy. Goodbye.' |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 15:21:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
(The Notre Dame engineers survey problem)
I'm afraid i'm not familiar with this phrase. Could someone elaborate?
For the rest i think the nylon bug argument looks very good. I'm just worried that someone will bring up some bizarre theory of information that somehow disqualifies this as an increase in information.
Not familiar with the ND stuff.
As to information, it doesn't matter how they define what information is in the genome. All that matters, informationally, in evolution is the production of variation (ie new proteins). If they define "new information" as not including novel, new, or modified proteins then evolution does not require their type of "new information". This is the problem that the creationists have run into, defining information so that it no longer applies to the mechanisms of evolution. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
