Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Be specific on why you believe this was an increase of complexity

Again:

The subpopulation of clams actually LOST the ability to metabolize saxitoxin.

“Resistance is caused by natural mutation of a single amino acid residue, which causes a 1,000-fold decrease in affinity at the saxitoxin-binding site in the sodium channel pore of resistant, but not sensitive, clams.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03415.html

The keyword being ‘decrease.’


Addressed previously on:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/723537/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/725700/

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Julie,
You never answered my assertion that you fabricated your entire explanation for the clam mutation being deleterious. I'm really curious what your explanation is. For a refresher, http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/725677/2 How did you come up with the idea that this subpopulation of clams lost the ablility to metabilize saxitoxin?

Re: Be specific on why you believe this was an increase of complexity

Even if we were to grant you that argument, it does not mean that evolution can not produce complexity or increase information.

The addition of the mutation increases the information and complexity of the genome of the species. Variation within a population is the raw material that natural selection acts upon.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Beyond that, the nylon eaters definitely show an increase in complexity.

Prove it - And how many times do we need to remind you?

1. You can't produce ANY organism that became more complex by mutations and natural selection.

2. Because of this, you focus ONLY on an example of bacteria that now metabolizes by-products of nylon. You are unable to prove that it never had that ability previously or that ability increased the complexity of the bacteria. (An INCREASE in information does NOT produce more complex abilities - Just additional ones on the same level.)
And ... when it changes into anything other than another type of bacteria, let us know.

3. So, because of lacking ANY examples, you make a statement that we should believe in evolution anyway because,

"It does not mean that evolution can not produce complexity or increase information."


Again, why is this nonsense considered science?


ONE MORE TIME, ARNESON - If you want to send just a link without any specific quotes or commentary, it displays nothing but a lack of understanding of the content.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Even if we were to grant you that argument, it does not mean that evolution can not produce complexity or increase information.

The addition of the mutation increases the information and complexity of the genome of the species. Variation within a population is the raw material that natural selection acts upon.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Beyond that, the nylon eaters definitely show an increase in complexity.

We have and it seems to keep slipping your mind.

WiYC said:
" 1. You can't produce ANY organism that became more complex by mutations and natural selection."

Actually, I already did with the nylon eaters. The function did not exist before nylon existed.

From Nylonase Enzymes
Post of the Month: April 2004 TalkOrigins
by Ian Musgrave
"Now, it is obvious that the gene(s) for hydrolysing nylon cannot have been present from the beginning, as in the absence of the substrate (nylon, not present before 1930), the gene product is non-functional, and the gene would be mutated to uselessness (or an entirely different function) in a few hundred years by random mutations, let alone thousands."
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html

It couldn't be done with a loss of information.
IBID:
"Faced with such an obvious production of a new gene with a novel function, the first thing creationists tried to do was claim this was a loss of information, that the nylonases represented a protein-digesting protein (protease) that had lost substrate specificity. That of course didn't fly, as the nylonases are exquisitely specific, act on no known amide bond other than the nylon beta amide bond, and have no relationship to any known protease."

Please explain in detail.

A gain in genetic information does NOT equate to a gain in complexity.

Are you now claiming that the ability to metabolize different substances is a step towards more complex and higher forms of life?

If so, please explain in detail .. and give us an example of bacteria evolving into something other than more bacteria.

Refer to the mathematical probability of the gene(s) evolving:
"First, there are two altered enzymes, not just one. Both these enzymes are needed to metabolize the 6-aminohexanoic-acid-cyclic-dimer (6-AHA CD) found in the waste water of the nylon factory. Neither of these enzymes alone is effective. Both are needed...
Second, enzyme 2 is not just the product of a frame shift, it is also the product of 140 point mutations. Many of these mutations are silent, but many are not. 47 amino acids out of 392 of the enzyme have been changed...
It seems to me that many of these altered amino acids are essential to the catalytic effect of the enzyme. How many, I don't know. In my above cited letter to Jim, I calculated the probability of getting multiple random mutations in the 30 years it took to evolve these enzymes. If the evolution of this enzyme had to rely on random point mutations, it could have never evolved. Thus, if only 6 of these 47 mutations were essential for the evolution, the probability of achieving it in 30 years is about 3 x 1035. So, if the evolution could not be random, then it would have to be nonrandom, and as I have suggested in my book, they would be triggered by the environment. That is, the capability is built into the bacterium and the environment triggers the mutations."
From:
http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id89.htm

Spetner's bio can be found on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Spetner

Two separate issues, but both are present in this instance.

WiYC:
"A gain in genetic information does NOT equate to a gain in complexity."

The bacteria showed both a genetic change and an increase in complexity of function.

Thanks for moving the goalposts again.

WiYC:
"Are you now claiming that the ability to metabolize different substances is a step towards more complex and higher forms of life?

If so, please explain in detail .. and give us an example of bacteria evolving into something other than more bacteria."

Of course the ability to metabolize a new substance is an increase in complexity. I provided an example of an increase in information and an increase in complexity.

Re: Prove it - And how many times do we need to remind you?

WiYC said:
"2. Because of this, you focus ONLY on an example of bacteria that now metabolizes by-products of nylon. You are unable to prove that it never had that ability previously or that ability increased the complexity of the bacteria. (An INCREASE in information does NOT produce more complex abilities - Just additional ones on the same level.)"

You ask for one example I provide it now you complain. Tsk tsk. Actually producing the ability to digest these nylon products is an increase in complexity (a new function) and an increase in information (new genetic instructions). Neither the ability to do this or the genes that produce it existed before. Your request has been fulfilled. Please admit that evolution can increase both complexity and information.

WiYC continued:
"And ... when it changes into anything other than another type of bacteria, let us know."

Studying microbes has the advantage of compressing the time needed to note evolutionary change. The scientists established that this function could be noted in the wild and reproduced in the lab. We have met your request and now you want to move the goalposts.

Very well. Take a look at the whale transitional series. It starts with a terrestrial animal and progresses through graduated changes to fully aquatic whales. Surely you see dramatic change there and evolution has produced it.

Re: Be specific on why you believe this was an increase of complexity

Julie,
Since you obviously refuse to read this paper, I'll spell it out for you. This saxitoxin binding site has NOTHING to do with saxitoxin metabolism. This is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air.

I have argued all along that this mutation results in a tremendous improvement in this organism's chances for survival. You have denied this fact all along, with this dreamed up argument that these clams can no longer metabolize saxitoxin. Again, this is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air. It has no basis in reality.

Please stay on topic here. This particular topic has nothing to do with an increase in complexity, it has everything to do with single point mutations resulting in drastic increases in an organism's chances for survival.

Your claims of more complexity?

Since you obviously understand this so well, please give us the specific details of why the clams are MORE genetically complex ... and you must reference your 'findings.'

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Julie,
Since you obviously refuse to read this paper, I'll spell it out for you. This saxitoxin binding site has NOTHING to do with saxitoxin metabolism. This is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air.

I have argued all along that this mutation results in a tremendous improvement in this organism's chances for survival. You have denied this fact all along, with this dreamed up argument that these clams can no longer metabolize saxitoxin. Again, this is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air. It has no basis in reality.

Please stay on topic here. This particular topic has nothing to do with an increase in complexity, it has everything to do with single point mutations resulting in drastic increases in an organism's chances for survival.

Re: Your claims of more complexity?

Ah, the shifting goalpost argument. Interesting that you can't just own up to the fact that you fabricated your reasoning. Can't we just be adults here? Why is it so hard for you to admit when you're wrong? We both know what's going on here, why don't we just put it on the table?

You claimed that this mutation is deleterious because clams can't metabolize saxitoxin. Either show me where this argument derives from, or admit that you made it up. Or admit that you didn't understand or didn't read the parent article. I really don't care one way or the other, but if we can't agree on the simple fact that this mutation is tremendously advantageous for this subpopulation of clams (the paper that supports this view has been referenced several time here), then there's no point in moving forward to more complex ideas, because, if you can't accept this fact, then you don't know the meaning of proof. So, again, support your statement that this mutation prevents clams from metabolizing saxitoxin.

It's your theory - The burden of proof is yours

1. Do you believe that making you prove evolution can occur is a "shifting goalpost argument"?

2. Are you aware that even "tremendously advantageous" mutations can be a result of deleterious mutations? Why don't you read up on it:
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

3. Please respond to our request from a earlier posting:
"Since you obviously understand this so well, please give us the specific details of why the clams are MORE genetically complex ... and you must reference your findings."

You can pontificate and give your opinion all you want but, unless you provide contradictory information (other than your own thoughts), stop with the accusations a make an intelligent case for your theory.

All you need to do is back up your statement

If you wish to start a new topic that debates complexity, please feel free to do so. However the topic we are debating here is very simple: you made a statement and I'm asking you to back it up. Again, if you want me to back up some of my statements I'll gladly do it, just go ahead and start another thread. Why do you refuse to stay on topic?

I know how much you love the word pontificate, but really, the focus of this thread is very clear. The title is "clam mutation". How about you just speak to the issue at hand?