Neanderthal DNA

[Charlie Hatchett]

Is a flagellem a lucky occurance of matter interacting randomly:



10,000 RPM's, stops in a quarter of a turn, and reverses up to the same RPM's in way under a second. Someone build that transmission, and we'll make a bunch of money!!

[Forum Monk]

Charley, 25 yrs is the 'normal' span given to a generation of our ancestors, and if that is correct, 3.4Myrs equates 136000 generations.
Reich claims that only 400 to 500 genes separates us from Chimps, and that equates to one genetic change per 270 generations and that equates to one per 5000+ years.
Not exactly a windstorm of visible change my friend.

Quite the contrary Digit, one mutation every 270 generations is a huge amount of change. You can not equate them to years but only to generations. Mutations can only occur when a new offspring develops. Not while it is growing up, maturing, etc. The kind of mutation which would drive changes in evolution would occur on random genes. There is high probability that the mutation will occur on the so-called junk DNA, there is also high probability that the mutation will either be neutral or non-beneficial. There is only a slight possibility that the mutation will result in a benefit to the organism. There is practically no possibility that the mutation will result in a more complex organism. This violates all that is known about information theory and specified complexity.

In my view it very unlikely that a beneficial mutation occured consistently with in the space of each 270 generations.

[Minimalist]

Problem , Digit, is where else in the world do we observe matter increasing in complexity? Do we see the horse drawn buggy evolving into a Ferrari:

Poor example. Inorganic matter cannot evolve at all...it is designed and executed by a Creator. The Ferrari is superb but the Edsel is hardly an example of 'Intelligent Design.' In any case, this fellow seems to disagree with you.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463

To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.

[Forum Monk]

One of the basic tenets of information theory states the information complexity can not increase without a designer or programmer. This link proves that as these digital organisms are in fact, both designed and programmed according to mathematical theories. I have seen references to this research before.

Interesting but artificial.
it is a good read, however.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Inorganic matter cannot evolve at all...it is designed and executed by a Creator

Exactly.

Without information, and more generally, intelligence, matter can not evolve.

...because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase...

Have you an everyday example, that's observable, to support this hypothesis? And the hypothesis begins with information in place. From where did the info come?

The Law of Cause and Effect demands the cause be greater than the effect.

[Minimalist]

Have you an everyday example, that's observable, to support this hypothesis

How about us? 3.4 million years ago we were basically chimps. Now look at us.

[Minimalist]

Okay.


Bad example.

[Charlie Hatchett]

How about us? 3.4 million years ago we were basically chimps. Now look at us.




Okay.


Bad example.

[Forum Monk]

As far as I'm concerned, Min just proved evolution with that last post. I can picture the press conference: "Ladies and gentlemen you are about to see incontrovertible proof of evolution...."

[Digit]

I had this with Marduk. Genetic change is random, ok. It acheives nothing till a condition that will promote an advantage occurs. This change could occur many generations after the mutation, in fact by that time a large proportion of the population could be carrying the gene. I did not suggest that one change occurred with each 270 generations, in fact taking my last point, by the time conditions changed the population may well have accumulated a number of changes, the overall effect being helpful in the new conditions.
The change in conditions does NOT cause the genetic change.

[Forum Monk]

... by the time conditions changed the population may well have accumulated a number of changes, the overall effect being helpful in the new conditions.
The change in conditions does NOT cause the genetic change.

This is partially false. There has been an ongoing study of Darwin's finches for approximately 30 years and multiple generations. It is known that changes in seasonal rainfall affect the size of seeds used by the birds as food. This fact, means birds with different beak sizes may have an easier or difficult time surviving on the available food. (Large beaks are suited for large seeds but not small seeds) Since birds with the incorrect beak size may not survive to produce a generation of chicks, their beak size trait is not passed on. The result, the next year a greater number of the suitable beak size. But, the conditions which change seed size may change, so the advantage becomes a disadvantage and the pendulum swings the other way. If a long term trend develops, this will result in a particular beak size being selected strictly by classical heredity.

Mutations are a different matter all together and relevent to Charlie and I's point of view about specified complexity.

[Digit]

Monk, what is the difference between a mutation and a genetic change please?
As regards your beak analogy, that is my point, the beak changes come first, alterations to seed size then filter out those no longer suitable to the new condition.
The change in seed size does not cause the beak size to change, that came first!

[Cognito]

As regards your beak analogy, that is my point, the beak changes come first, alterations to seed size then filter out those no longer suitable to the new condition.

Somewhat like the dandelion example. The mutation for short-stemmed dandelions is there and there are a few in the yard, but they don't grow as well as the long-stemmed until someone starts mowing the lawn every week (ie the environment changes). At that point, the short-stemmed dandelions have an advantage since they can grow to maturity and spread seedlings without interruption.

[Digit]

Exactly Cog. And as many changes at the genetic level are neutral a number could accumulate in a species with no noticeable effect at all untill a change in conditions puts pressure on the species, for better or for worse.
That would still represent an average of 270 generations even if many changes occured in a few generations due to outside stimulii. Loss of ozone layer for example.
My understanding of mutational change as against genetic change is that mutations are ascribed to external forces and genetic changes are random events.
If the changes are passed down through the generations it matters not how they started, and would we know the difference any way?

[Cognito]

My understanding of mutational change as against genetic change is that mutations are ascribed to external forces and genetic changes are random events.

We had a prior discussion regarding "junk DNA" which, as it turns out, appears to be made up of mutagens that respond to changes in the environment. Pre-planned, built-in modification genes. Cool.