How can mutations add new information?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

This website has really fallen off a cliff. This is old debunked nonsense. Look up the INSERTION mutation. You people have no clue what evolution is or how it works, you just KNOW it's wrong. It's comical. Grow up. Only butthurt babies still fight science in 2019.

I suspect you are one of those friendly atheists.

To be fair, I used to be friendly on here and in real life I still am. If you look back at my posts from 7-8 years ago, they were cool collective and focused on the data. By this point I've heard and corrected the same fallacious claims for over a decade, so I no longer have the patience to repeat the same stuff again TO THE SAME PEOPLE. Especially when based on the history, all of it falls on deaf ears, regardless. This is why I say there is no honesty with creationists. They don't care about data or evidence, they care about a religion, and this is demonstrated by the fact that you guys constantly deflect to ignorance and can't ever refute the evidence.

I understand you are late to the party (creationism hasn't been relevant in 15 years), but that's no excuse to argue ignorant straw men.

originally posted by: chr0naut
What was definitely shown was natural selection. That is unarguable. To go beyond the evidence is mere speculative inference.

The exact mutation has been found and isolated with that species as I demonstrated above. How can you discount evolution in that species when genetic mutations and natural selection have been shown directly?

For instance, can you eliminate the possibility that any phenotypic change, if there was such, was due to horizontal genetic transfer, or was an already innate trait in the gene pool (and, of course, epigenetically triggered traits, which has some cross-over to the previous mechanism)? Since the data does not eliminate them from possibility, you cannot make the assumption that the classical evolutionary models are exclusively shown.

Can you eliminate the possibility that an invisible gnome didn't actually do it? This is just an appeal to ignorance. "You don't know that it wasn't X," is not a valid argument. Can you show evidence FOR any of that in relation to this species? That's how logic works.

You argued that evolution is shown in the example, when there are other equally plausible and even some better evidenced explanations.

Ah but this is not the case. There are no equally plausible explanations. The mutation has been shown, natural selection has been confirmed. If you are saying there are better explanations, then it's on you to demonstrate your so called evidence in this species.

No, there can be other valid explanations for the observed data, which you are overlooking because they do not support your 'pet theory'.

Nope, it's because there is no demonstrated evidence of any other explanation in this case.

I am arguing that in very many instances where it is claimed that evolution is demonstrated, that confirmation bias towards evolution is clouding the interpretation. This is because the alternate possible mechanisms have not been eliminated as possibilities and sometimes are better supported by the evidence.

Evolution is by far the most demonstrated and consistently applicable explanation for diversity of life and going by that is logical unless you have evidence to show an alternative explanation.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept all the conclusions of this paper.

No surprise there. But other papers you have no problem accepting as absolute truth, just not this one because it doesn't agree with your postulated alternate mechanisms (which do operate within the evolutionary framework regardless).

While the authors may have identified the genetic locus of melanism, they fail entirely in eliminating the non-evolutionary possible reasons for the existence of the gene.

I don't like repeating myself, but this is addressed above. You don't eliminate all other possible explanations, you show evidence for the one that applies. If you are saying alternative explanations, you must show evidence of such. Basic burden of proof, logic 101.

I think we know nothing about creation nor evolution!

Or what we know has more holes than an emmental chees.

I'm really interested in the subject evolution not creation, but know little about the established science!

I once read a very interesting story
(ats has a thread)
about these two scientist Working for Ciba Geigy, and what they stumbled over during their research!

Long story short.

They sprouted and hedged, seeds and fisheggs, under artificial electrostatic fields, and the outcomes where extinct fish species, superproductiv corn, Jurassic ferns, and what not!

Unbelievable!!!!

I would really appreciate a take on this by some knowledgeable posters in the genetic field???

Honestly No Clue

originally posted by: NoClue
I think we know nothing about creation nor evolution!

Or what we know has more holes than an emmental chees.

I'm really interested in the subject evolution not creation, but know little about the established science!

I once read a very interesting story
(ats has a thread)
about these two scientist Working for Ciba Geigy, and what they stumbled over during their research!

Long story short.

They sprouted and hedged, seeds and fisheggs, under artificial electrostatic fields, and the outcomes where extinct fish species, superproductiv corn, Jurassic ferns, and what not!

Unbelievable!!!!

I would really appreciate a take on this by some knowledgeable posters in the genetic field???

Honestly No Clue

Wow good find. Reminds me of Luc Montagnier's experiment with viruses. He was able to cause a virus to form from a vial of monomer building blocks simply by applying the electromagnetic field that the living virus emitted. My current thinking is that electromagnetic fields carry information that code for living organisms, which results in their 'aura' / morphogenic field. Amazing how in that experiment the organisms resorted to their archetypal coding due to electromagnetic fields.

a reply to: cooperton

the information could also be stored in the double helix of the genome and the electrostatic fields activates different parts of it?

Clueless guess at best

a reply to: chr0naut

Furthermore, HGT is a mechanism of evolution. I'm still not sure why you think otherwise.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or lateral gene transfer (LGT)[1][2][3] is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the ("vertical") transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).[4] HGT is an important factor in the evolution of many organisms.

Horizontal_gene_transfer_in_evolution

Yeah, it was a challenge to explain it at first and to build the tree of life for bacteria, but it's not in contradiction of evolution. It's just another mechanism and who knows, it could be responsible for the Cambrian explosion when the original types phyla first split off.

Now in this particular case, we are referring to peppered moths and since HGT has never been observed in anything but bacteria, it's safe to rule that out.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
What was definitely shown was natural selection. That is unarguable. To go beyond the evidence is mere speculative inference.

The exact mutation has been found and isolated with that species as I demonstrated above. How can you discount evolution in that species when genetic mutations and natural selection have been shown directly?

Yes, there are genetic differences that express in different traits. But the mutation may have occurred millions of years before the alleged predatory natural selection (there has been some suggestion that the moths were actually 'posed' on the areas on the trees that would make them stand out, and that, in nature, the coloration of the bark is not uniform but tends to be darker underneath, providing a micro-environment compatible with the reduction of visibility of the darker moths. In short, that the studies were flawed by researchers who falsified results to be compatible with their theories).

What was shown was still only natural selection influencing population numbers and also, after the industrial revolution stopped 'sooting up' the trees, the lighter colored population numbers rose.

I would posit that if anything, this demonstrated how innate genetic variability insulates a species from changing environmental pressures. A clear example of a counter-natural selection survival mechanism. The opposite of what is required for evolution by mechanisms of the MES, or similar.

For instance, can you eliminate the possibility that any phenotypic change, if there was such, was due to horizontal genetic transfer, or was an already innate trait in the gene pool (and, of course, epigenetically triggered traits, which has some cross-over to the previous mechanism)? Since the data does not eliminate them from possibility, you cannot make the assumption that the classical evolutionary models are exclusively shown.

Can you eliminate the possibility that an invisible gnome didn't actually do it? This is just an appeal to ignorance. "You don't know that it wasn't X," is not a valid argument. Can you show evidence FOR any of that in relation to this species? That's how logic works.

Invisible gnomes are preposterous.

Horizontal genetic transfer, innate trait variability and epigenetics are all rational and we have good reason to believe would have been present in the observed populations. So, to suggest that one reasonable but unobserved mechanism excluded other reasonable but unobserved mechanisms is fallacious.

Evidence for those mechanisms (in very similar species) as requested:

Impact of Lateral Transfers on the Genomes of Lepidoptera - ResearchGate

Epigenetic variability of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae) under mass rearing conditions - ResearchGate

Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth Is Not Associated with Genetic Variation in Canonical Melanisation Gene Candidates - PLOS

You argued that evolution is shown in the example, when there are other equally plausible and even some better evidenced explanations.

Ah but this is not the case. There are no equally plausible explanations. The mutation has been shown, natural selection has been confirmed. If you are saying there are better explanations, then it's on you to demonstrate your so called evidence in this species.

Yes, there are other equally plausible explanations. I have previously outlined them. The point was that your pet theory is also not evidenced in that species. You are requiring evidence from me and yet there is no evidence that evolution as defined by the MES or equivalent, has occurred in this instance.

No, there can be other valid explanations for the observed data, which you are overlooking because they do not support your 'pet theory'.

Nope, it's because there is no demonstrated evidence of any other explanation in this case.

There is no evidence for the MES or similar, either.

I am arguing that in very many instances where it is claimed that evolution is demonstrated, that confirmation bias towards evolution is clouding the interpretation. This is because the alternate possible mechanisms have not been eliminated as possibilities and sometimes are better supported by the evidence.

Evolution is by far the most demonstrated and consistently applicable explanation for diversity of life and going by that is logical unless you have evidence to show an alternative explanation.

Perhaps your inability to evaluate the evidence that these 'alternative explanations' actually occur, is your problem and indicative of why evolutionary theory seems so prevalent.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept all the conclusions of this paper.

No surprise there. But other papers you have no problem accepting as absolute truth, just not this one because it doesn't agree with your postulated alternate mechanisms (which do operate within the evolutionary framework regardless).

I explained that the paper postulated that the genetic change had occurred at a later date than there were actual samples of the darker moths collected. This indicates that they must have gotten their calculations drastically wrong and clearly the physical evidence proves the paper's conclusions false.

While the authors may have identified the genetic locus of melanism, they fail entirely in eliminating the non-evolutionary possible reasons for the existence of the gene.

I don't like repeating myself, but this is addressed above. You don't eliminate all other possible explanations, you show evidence for the one that applies. If you are saying alternative explanations, you must show evidence of such. Basic burden of proof, logic 101.

There was no evidence that the MES, or similar, applied. Nor were other alternate possibilities eliminated. If the MES were evidenced, you could almost forget the other possibilities, but in this case, it wasn't evidenced either and therefore drawing a conclusion, with complete denial that there could be other factors and mechanisms, is entirely unfounded.

When you design a science experiment, you try and test for all contingencies with the hope of identifying the actual mechanisms. Too mush evolutionary science is just supposition around a single assumption.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Furthermore, HGT is a mechanism of evolution. I'm still not sure why you think otherwise.

I don't think otherwise. But even if HGT occurs only occasionally, the idea that entire sequences can be transferred between species means that all the gradualism and requirement for separating barriers and that adaption takes place in stages, is entirely defunct. As a concept and as actual mechanism, it breaks previous understandings of evolution and becomes a factor of more importance than mutation.

One species can acquire entire 'evolved' traits from another. So the process of getting a functional eye can happen in a single step. That pretty much negates the whole shebang right there as outrageous evolutionary stages can happen massively quickly and almost totally randomly.

How do you predict a phylogenetic tree if some unicellular creature takes in an advanced trait from a far more complex organism? The 'flow' of evolutionary change as previously conceived is just crazy and everything links across to everything else, even in reverse direction.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or lateral gene transfer (LGT)[1][2][3] is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the ("vertical") transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).[4] HGT is an important factor in the evolution of many organisms.

Horizontal_gene_transfer_in_evolutionYeah, it was a challenge to explain it at first and to build the tree of life for bacteria, but it's not in contradiction of evolution. It's just another mechanism and who knows, it could be responsible for the Cambrian explosion when the original types phyla first split off.

Now in this particular case, we are referring to peppered moths and since HGT has never been observed in anything but bacteria, it's safe to rule that out.

HGT has been observed with multiple species.

Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals - NCBI PMC

I posted a paper describing how it occurred in moths in my previous post.

We do HGT in the lab when we take genes from one organism and insert them into another. It is the basis of genetic engineering and we didn't invent it, we copied natural processes.

We can see how retroviral action has carried DNA from other species into human DNA:

Widespread of horizontal gene transfer in the human genome - BMC Genomics

Evidence of Massive Horizontal Gene Transfer Between Humans and Plasmodium vivax - Nature Preecedings