DNA Information Evolution and ID

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
SailingCyclops
Site Supporter
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

DNA Information Evolution and ID

Post #1

Post by SailingCyclops »

In a Random Ramblings discussion dadman asserted:
dadman wrote: .. since all code derives from an intelligent source . . .
[...]
I do believe the subject is not so much evolution . . . but intelligence . . .
do you know anything about this "evolution coder/de-coder" ??
ref:This post

The assertion is made that since DNA is a code, there must be a coder. Presumably, some intelligent entity.

Questions for debate:

Is the coding, and information transfer we observe in DNA a product of evolution by natural selection? Or does DNA information and it's transfer demand an intelligence?

Does all code derive from an intelligent source?

Bob

Religion flies you into buildings, Science flies you to the moon.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Bless us and save us, said Mrs. O'Davis

User avatar
delcoder
Scholar
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: DNA Information Evolution and ID

Post #91

Post by delcoder »

delcoder wrote:TOE teaches change comes spontaneously and randomly and lives on only through natural selection. ...
nursebenjamin wrote:The ToE teaches that evolution occurs when there are changes in genetic variation within a population of interbreeding organisms causing some alleles at a given gene to be more fit (common) than others. Mechanisms that can lead to changes in allele frequency include natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Please remember that there are many sources of genetic variation, including: mutations; the recombination of chromosomes that occurs during sexual reproduction; random segregation, crossing over, and random fertilization that occurs during meiosis; mobile genetic elements; the migration of populations; genetic drift: population bottlenecks and the founder effect; etc... Gene expression and the regulation of gene expression also play an important role in natural selection and evolution.

You have said nothing here that any first year biology student doesn't know. As to genetic drift and gene flow they are very small factors in genetic variation.

As to the regulation of gene expression playing an important role in evolution, baloney.
delcoder wrote:
nygreenguy wrote:I can sequence the genome of an individual with and without epigenetic changes and they can (and usually do) come out identical. This is because epigenetic changes are, by definition, above the genome. Epigenetics are changes in the expression of genes already present. It doesnt (usually) alter the underlying genetic sequence.

You cannot state: "it doesn't (usually) alter the underlying genetic sequence." without by use of the word "usually" allowing for it sometimes changing "the underlying genetic sequence." 99% of geneticists would leave the "(usually)" out of the foregoing statement. Only a few are looking into this possibility and their success has so far been minimal, but none the less of great import. If they do in fact find epigenetic changes can at some point change the DNA Darwinian TOE is dead.
nursebenjamin wrote:Just to clarify, epigenetics are changes in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence and is heritable to future generations. Epigenetics modifies the DNA molecules, but never involves changes in the underlying DNA sequence. Examples of epigenetic modifications to the DNA molecule include:
  • DNA methylation in which a methyl molecule is attached to a DNA base which blocks transcription. (This changes the chemical structure of the DNA molecule.)

No clarification was necessary. nygreenguy strayed from the fold of the dedicated evolutionists by introducing "(usually)" not me. I made that perfectly clear and indicated its implications to him. Perhaps, since you seem to think you are so great an authority, you can counsel him on this point.
url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histone_ac ... cetylation]Histone acetylation and deacetylation[/url] can change the way the DNA molecule is folded, which can make certain genes more or less available for transcription. (The proteins that DNA wraps around are changed.)[/list]

Ok, now we are all brought up to speed on the basics. Can we debate?

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #92

Post by nygreenguy »

In 2007 Nature devoted a whole special topics issue to epigenetics. Here is a good article:
Nature 447, 396-398 (24 May 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05913; Published online 23 May 2007

Introduction
Perceptions of epigenetics

Adrian Bird1

Top of pageAbstract
Geneticists study the gene; however, for epigeneticists, there is no obvious 'epigene'. Nevertheless, during the past year, more than 2,500 articles, numerous scientific meetings and a new journal were devoted to the subject of epigenetics. It encompasses some of the most exciting contemporary biology and is portrayed by the popular press as a revolutionary new science " an antidote to the idea that we are hard-wired by our genes. So what is epigenetics?

There has always been a place in biology for words that have different meanings for different people. Epigenetics is an extreme case, because it has several meanings with independent roots. To Conrad Waddington, it was the study of epigenesis: that is, how genotypes give rise to phenotypes during development1. By contrast, Arthur Riggs and colleagues defined epigenetics as the study of mitotically and/or meiotically heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence2: in other words, inheritance, but not as we know it. These definitions differ markedly, although they are often conflated as though they refer to a single phenomenon. Waddington's term encompasses the activity of all developmental biologists who study how gene activity during development causes the phenotype to emerge, but it suffers from the disadvantage that developmental biologists themselves rarely, if ever, use this word to describe their field. In this sense, the usage is obsolete. The definition put forward by Riggs and colleagues tells us what epigenetics is not (inheritance of mutational changes), leaving open what kinds of mechanism are at work. In this article, I give examples of how epigenetic phenomena are studied and interpreted, and I propose a revised definition that embodies contemporary usage of the word.[cut]
Epigenetics and inheritance
Should heritability be mandatory in a contemporary view of epigenetics? The requirement that epigenetic characters should be transmissible through mitosis or meiosis has the virtue of clarity but can be a liability. To explain why, it is necessary to introduce a third, somewhat informal, 'definition' of epigenetics that has crept into widespread use. This incarnation of epigenetics encompasses the biology of chromatin, including the complex language of chromatin marks (see page 407), the transcriptional effects of RNA interference (see page 399) and, for good measure, the effects of the higher-order structure of chromosomes and the nucleus (see page 413). The attraction of this usage is that it brackets together some of the most exciting contemporary work in biology. Its drawback is that it does not sit easily with the prevailing textbook definitions. One reason for this is that many chromatin marks are short-lived. For example, phosphorylation of the variant histone H2AX (also known as H2AFX) after a double-strand break11 would qualify as an epigenetic mark under the emerging definition, but it is too transient to qualify as a heritable epigenetic mark (Fig. 2). Histone modifications associated with transcription are also ambiguous with respect to heritability. On the one hand, DNA methylation affects histone acetylation and histone methylation, so these modifications can be viewed as heritably epigenetic, albeit indirectly12. On the other hand, these histone marks can also result from events that seem to involve neither DNA methylation nor Polycomb group proteins, and the marks are not necessarily transmissible between generations. Therefore, a single histone modification could, in principle, be rated as either epigenetic or not epigenetic according to the heritability credentials of its origin. Such a complicated classification system would have limited utility.
Refining a definition
Given that there are several existing definitions of epigenetics, it might be felt that another is the last thing we need. Conversely, there might be a place for a view of epigenetics that keeps the sense of the prevailing usages but avoids the constraints imposed by stringently requiring heritability. The following could be a unifying definition of epigenetic events: the structural adaptation of chromosomal regions so as to register, signal or perpetuate altered activity states. This definition is inclusive of chromosomal marks, because transient modifications associated with both DNA repair or cell-cycle phases and stable changes maintained across multiple cell generations qualify. It focuses on chromosomes and genes, implicitly excluding potential three-dimensional architectural templating of membrane systems and prions, except when these impinge on chromosome function. Also included is the exciting possibility that epigenetic processes are buffers of genetic variation, pending an epigenetic (or mutational) change of state that leads an identical combination of genes to produce a different developmental outcome17.

An implicit feature of this proposed definition is that it portrays epigenetic marks as responsive, not proactive. In other words, epigenetic systems of this kind would not, under normal circumstances, initiate a change of state at a particular locus but would register a change already imposed by other events. Such events could be, for example, the collision of DNA with ionizing radiation or a developmental switch in gene expression. It could be argued that the responsive nature of epigenetic processes is a unifying feature, because classic epigenetic systems such as the DNA methylation system and the Polycomb/Trithorax systems seem to respond to previous switches in gene activity in this way. Therefore, their sophisticated feature is the ability, in the 'darkness' of the nucleus, to sense and mark changes in the chromosomal status. For example, transcriptional activation through sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins brings in histone acetyltransferases, which then epigenetically adapt the promoter region for transcription (for histone acetyl groups, although ephemeral, would now be epigenetic). Similarly, elongating polymerases carry enzymes that restrain the spurious transcriptional initiation that might arise within the temporarily disrupted chromatin of an active gene. Without such epigenetic mechanisms, hard-won changes in genetic programming could be dissipated and lost; transient disruptions of chromosomal organization might go uncompensated; and DNA damage might escape repair.

From another paper:
Epigenetic spillover across generations
Many of the epigenetic marks that are inherited and acquired by germ cells are therefore erased in PGCs and in early embryos, making way for new generations to develop and grow into adults purely on the basis of their genetic make-up. However, it also seems that epigenetic information can spill over to the next generation. The ability of somatic cells in the offspring to inherit the methylation of imprinted genes from parental germ cells is a mechanistic example of this (Fig. 4c). Another important example of spillover is inheritance of the epigenetic states conferred on some genes by adjacent insertion of IAPs. This can alter the expression of the endogenous genes; however, more importantly, the epigenetic state of the IAP (that is, methylated or unmethylated) regulates the expression of the nearby gene61. Because IAPs seem generally resistant to reprogramming during PGC and pre-implantation development, the state of expression of the genes that are regulated by IAP insertion can be inherited across several generations. It is interesting to note that there is an example of epigenetic inheritance being maternally transmitted but not paternally transmitted (the agouti viable yellow epiallele in mice), and the methylation of the IAP in the sperm is, unusually, erased in the zygote in this case62. So epigenetic inheritance is 'broken' by erasure of methylation of the paternal genome after fertilization.
Reik, Wolf Nature 447, 425-432 (24 May 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05918; Published online 23 May 2007
Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development

So, epigenetic changes are NOT always inherited. Only sometimes.

Now, Im not even sure what your overall argument ABOUT this is. What are you trying to claim epigenetics do, or have done?

Starboard Tack
Scholar
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:28 am

Re: DNA Information Evolution and ID

Post #93

Post by Starboard Tack »

SailingCyclops wrote:
mich wrote: While natural selection explains why some forms of life exists today and why other lifeforms have become exstinct, it doesn't explain how lifeforms evolve through mutations.
Oh but it does. Watch and learn how science has created new life forms, new species. This is being done in the lab, and mirrors what evolution took millions of years to acomplish.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

More Here

Bob
Well, not quite. Venter's group is doing remarkable, amazing science that may have tremendously positive impacts on humanity, but what they are doing has zero to do with origins of life. They have created novel life out of existing life. This explains about as much about the origin of life as modifying a Camaro tells us about the origin of automobiles.

Starboard Tack
Scholar
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:28 am

Re: DNA Information Evolution and ID

Post #94

Post by Starboard Tack »

delcoder wrote:
SailingCyclops wrote: Oh but it does. Watch and learn how science has created new life forms, new species. This is being done in the lab, and mirrors what evolution took millions of years to acomplish.
I see no mirror here at all. TOE teaches change comes spontaneously and randomly and lives on only through natural selection. What I see here is experimenting with existing life by adding engineered chromosomes. There is no viable means to add information to a genome naturally. Hence, TOE falls on its face before it gets to natural selection. There is a means to activate heretofore inactive genes through epigenetics, but that only occurs with respect to adaptation. All I see here is a few scientists playing with nature for no apparent benefit.
No, I think there may be some beneift, especially if Venter is able to accomplish what he is trying to accomplish - synthetically engineered critters that can produce hydrogen out of banana peels, just like in "Back to the Future." However, what he is doing is not an affirmation of the naturalisitc model for life's creation, but is contributing to its refutation. What has he done? With massive amouts of intelligence and a huge budget, he has taken existing life, tweaked it by introducing a genome from another critter and produced a novel life form. So he has proved that it takes intelligence and resources to create a modification to life. So if it takes intelligence to create novel life (from life) in a lab, on what basis does one presume that it takes no intelligence to create life from no life in a mud puddle?

As usual, the scientific results naturalists get the most excited about always seem to undermine their world view.

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Re: DNA Information Evolution and ID

Post #95

Post by nygreenguy »

Starboard Tack wrote: What has he done? With massive amouts of intelligence and a huge budget, he has taken existing life, tweaked it by introducing a genome from another critter and produced a novel life form. So he has proved that it takes intelligence and resources to create a modification to life. So if it takes intelligence to create novel life (from life) in a lab, on what basis does one presume that it takes no intelligence to create life from no life in a mud puddle?

As usual, the scientific results naturalists get the most excited about always seem to undermine their world view.
Most genetic modification relies on using methods already present in nature. Our favorite bactetia, agrobacteria, is a bacteria which naturally takes its DNA and injects it into plants to get the plant to propagate the bacteria. All people do is change the code of the DNA that goes in so the process it natural.

Bacteria are also able to pick up DNa from its environment an incorporate it into its own. Nature manages to create novel organisms on its own without intelligence.

Starboard Tack
Scholar
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:28 am

Re: DNA Information Evolution and ID

Post #96

Post by Starboard Tack »

nygreenguy wrote:
Starboard Tack wrote: What has he done? With massive amouts of intelligence and a huge budget, he has taken existing life, tweaked it by introducing a genome from another critter and produced a novel life form. So he has proved that it takes intelligence and resources to create a modification to life. So if it takes intelligence to create novel life (from life) in a lab, on what basis does one presume that it takes no intelligence to create life from no life in a mud puddle?

As usual, the scientific results naturalists get the most excited about always seem to undermine their world view.
Most genetic modification relies on using methods already present in nature. Our favorite bactetia, agrobacteria, is a bacteria which naturally takes its DNA and injects it into plants to get the plant to propagate the bacteria. All people do is change the code of the DNA that goes in so the process it natural.

Bacteria are also able to pick up DNa from its environment an incorporate it into its own. Nature manages to create novel organisms on its own without intelligence.
If the process is natural, then you should have an explanation for where the DNA came from in the first place. If you don't have that explanation, but believe that it's only because we haven't studied the problem enough, you're not up to date on origins research, where the bottom up approach has all but been abandoned, with teams like Venters throwing in the towel on where life came from and have turned instead to doing remarkable science using the building blocks whose origins are inexplicable. By positioning that all of this is "natural" like an earthquake, avalanche or oxidation is tap dancing away from the problem, but I suppose is a necessary part of the philosophical requirements for hard core methodological naturalism. Back to Iris Fry, she wrote something pretty interesting. She is so contemptuous of anyone who would be dumb enough to believe in God that she sometimes doesn't seem to realize what her statements actually say about the basis of her position, (nevermind that of many on this thread). She wrote on page 213 of "The Emergence of Life on Earth": "Thus the theory of evolution is indeed based on a naturalistic wordview that entails a metaphysical commitment...." She goes onto to say that her metaphysics are fine what with being based on science and all. Couldn't have said it better myself. Evolution = metaphysics. So I suppose to her as well, the existence of the DNA code is just something "natural."

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Re: DNA Information Evolution and ID

Post #97

Post by nygreenguy »

Starboard Tack wrote: If the process is natural, then you should have an explanation for where the DNA came from in the first place.
I though we had some pretty good ideas already?
If you don't have that explanation, but believe that it's only because we haven't studied the problem enough, you're not up to date on origins research, where the bottom up approach has all but been abandoned, with teams like Venters throwing in the towel on where life came from and have turned instead to doing remarkable science using the building blocks whose origins are inexplicable.

A quick scopus search showed me around 60 papers on abiogenesis within the past 5 years.
By positioning that all of this is "natural" like an earthquake, avalanche or oxidation is tap dancing away from the problem, but I suppose is a necessary part of the philosophical requirements for hard core methodological naturalism.
We try to reason out the problem using the knowledge we have. We dont give up and resort to "god did it". If we had all the answers, we would have no need to continue searching. Just because the problem is hard, doesnt mean that "god" is the answer


Back to Iris Fry, she wrote something pretty interesting. She is so contemptuous of anyone who would be dumb enough to believe in God that she sometimes doesn't seem to realize what her statements actually say about the basis of her position, (nevermind that of many on this thread). She wrote on page 213 of "The Emergence of Life on Earth": "Thus the theory of evolution is indeed based on a naturalistic wordview that entails a metaphysical commitment...." She goes onto to say that her metaphysics are fine what with being based on science and all. Couldn't have said it better myself. Evolution = metaphysics. So I suppose to her as well, the existence of the DNA code is just something "natural."
Im not sure you are quoting her properly because in the preceeding pages she seems to say something different.

User avatar
delcoder
Scholar
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:50 pm

Post #98

Post by delcoder »

I'm tired of revolving around the same old mulberry bush. Here is a reference that introduces the possibility that mutations may not be spontaneous and random. In fact they may be controlled by the environement. Epigenetic?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145519.htm

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #99

Post by nygreenguy »

delcoder wrote:I'm tired of revolving around the same old mulberry bush. Here is a reference that introduces the possibility that mutations may not be spontaneous and random. In fact they may be controlled by the environement. Epigenetic?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145519.htm
The article said:
"We made a list of the genes that changed the most," Nielsen said, "and what was fascinating was that, bing!, at the top of that list was a gene that had changed very strongly, and it was related to the response to oxygen."
The SNP with the most dramatic change in frequency, from 9 percent in Han Chinese to 87 percent in Tibetans, was associated with lower red blood cell count and lower hemoglobin levels in Tibetans. That variation occurred near a gene called EPAS1, which earlier studies suggest is involved in regulating hemoglobin in the blood as a response to oxygen levels. The mutation may be in a transcription factor that regulates the activity of EPAS1.
Tibetans carrying only one allele with this mutation had about the same hemoglobin concentration as Han Chinese, but those with two mutated alleles had significantly lower hemoglobin concentration. However, they all have about the same oxygen concentration in the blood. For some reason, individuals with two copies of the mutation function well in high altitude with relatively low hemoglobin concentration in their blood. The mutation seems to provide an alternative inborn mechanism for dealing with the low oxygen levels, Nielsen said.
Where does the article suggest the mutations were not "spontaneous" or "random"?

Additionally, you try to squeeze in epigenetics once again. Why? We have CHANGES in the genome which you even admit to, that right there MEANS it is not epigenetic. The authors looked at the DNA and they found genetic mutations accounted for the ability to survive at high altitudes.

Where or how does epigenetics fit into any of this?

User avatar
delcoder
Scholar
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:50 pm

Post #100

Post by delcoder »

nygreenguy wrote:The article said:
"We made a list of the genes that changed the most," Nielsen said, "and what was fascinating was that, bing!, at the top of that list was a gene that had changed very strongly, and it was related to the response to oxygen."
The SNP with the most dramatic change in frequency, from 9 percent in Han Chinese to 87 percent in Tibetans, was associated with lower red blood cell count and lower hemoglobin levels in Tibetans. That variation occurred near a gene called EPAS1, which earlier studies suggest is involved in regulating hemoglobin in the blood as a response to oxygen levels. The mutation may be in a transcription factor that regulates the activity of EPAS1.
Tibetans carrying only one allele with this mutation had about the same hemoglobin concentration as Han Chinese, but those with two mutated alleles had significantly lower hemoglobin concentration. However, they all have about the same oxygen concentration in the blood. For some reason, individuals with two copies of the mutation function well in high altitude with relatively low hemoglobin concentration in their blood. The mutation seems to provide an alternative inborn mechanism for dealing with the low oxygen levels, Nielsen said.
Where does the article suggest the mutations were not "spontaneous" or "random"?
Cherry picking, always cherry picking. The introduction clause of the article said:
For more than a decade, Dr. Susan Rosenberg, professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, has solidified her premise that when cells are under stress, the rate of gene changes called mutations goes up
Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/13Ysv)
Emphasis added.

and:
This time, she used bacteria that had a defective gene for resistance to an antibiotic called tetracycline. If the gene had worked, the cells would be resistant to the antibiotic. Instead, these cells were susceptible. Again, she starved the cells. In response to the starvation, the cells increased their rate of mutation including mutation of the defective gene.
Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/13Ysv)
and:
In another set of experiments, she and her colleagues attempted to find out how much stress-induced mutagenesis contributed to spontaneous mutation. To do this, they studied starved cells that were not being stimulated with a second stressor, a DNA break.

One by one, they eliminated the stress-response pathways within the cells that they knew contributed to stress-induced mutagenesis.

"When we did that, half of the mutagenesis went away," said Rosenberg. "That means we can say half of spontaneous mutation is stress-inducible.

Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/13Ysv)
nygreenguy wrote:Additionally, you try to squeeze in epigenetics once again. Why? We have CHANGES in the genome which you even admit to, that right there MEANS it is not epigenetic. The authors looked at the DNA and they found genetic mutations accounted for the ability to survive at high altitudes.
The main premise of epigenetic changes is they are environment driven. Obviously, what she has found here is that the rate of mutations is also environmentally driven. Coincidence?
nygreenguy wrote:Where or how does epigenetics fit into any of this?
See above.
The mundane and hardly proven premise that all mutations are errors has always seemed peculiar to me. First a mistake has to be made. Considering millions of individual base pair copies are made why do a few get copied wrong. Then there is the proof reading mechanism that corrects the errors. It seems strange and highly improbable that this mechanism would fail to correct some of the same errors made previously. It would seem far more probable that the proof reading mechanism would miss correct some base pairs. The question needs to be asked why is the proof reading mechanism 100% efficient on millions of base pairs and then goof on the very few miss copied base pairs. Of course I am looking at all this from a purely logical standpoint, but it seems to me that scientists are blindly accepting a premise just as they blindly accepted "junk DNA."

Post Reply