In my previous existence here, Nigel and I engaged is quite a long
discussion about evolution. We did it offline. At that time, I asked Nigel
to provide evidence of what he considers to be "clear" proof of evolution.
I don't believe he has satisfied that criteria.
So, now, I would like to ask Nigel to provide the group with his best proof
(genetic or otherwise) of evolution happenning. Not speculation of "maybe
this", "maybe that", "this should happen", "that should happen" ...etc.
Just clear simple proof of evolution that is observable.
You see, sometimes many highly qualified people would infer from the data
their interpretation of what the data means. This is what Nigel is doing.
He is inferring that the genetic data "appears" to match Darwinian Evolution
Theory. But Folks, we need to be circumspect enough to separate the fact
from its interpretation. The fact is the fact, but interpretation of what
that fact infers is just an opinion.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Dyer" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
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?
