In answer to jwinter
To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need
to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of
the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the
information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled
organisms (such as us). There are countless examples which show how
duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes
can create complex proteins from simple proteins. Indeed the
relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can
often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which
closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the
species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of
complex variants in different plants/animals.
The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks
about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because
we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA,
although there is absolute evidence that it is. This is increasingly
looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and
robust way (like a hologram). These can change and mutate and give rise
to variations in the organism without being lethal. A lot of the
statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is
based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small
changes are frequently lethal. The statistics for the rest of the DNA
is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the
evolutionary model.
So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA
could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I
dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont
understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet. However, my hunch is that
we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding
rules are, but that is a different topic entirely.
And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably
shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs.
Nigel
For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field
about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a
good time.
I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved
from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora
of life forms which past and present have occupied it. But the
mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to
me. I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes
cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are
needed for life - so the question is how did they arise? Is it
possible that the first life form (that as a minimum must have been
implanted on this planet) could have contained in some condensed form
sufficient information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms
that have occurred? Or is it necessary that some additional injection
or meddling was necessary along the way?
For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first
creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates
evolved from the frog. So one question would be, is there sufficient
information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing
(by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that
have occurred (and of course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to
postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added
to the limited information available in frog DNA?
So my question is really this:- From your knowledge of the DNA
content of various life forms (and assuming the so-called "junk" DNA
between gene coding regions actually contains useful information for
possible future evolution), is there sufficient information in the DNA
of simpler looking life forms to allow them to evolve into the more
complex types, or does information need to be added?
