Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 10-24-2002, 04:06 AM

A creationist I'm talking to wanted examples of new genetic information. I gave him this.

<a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/new_info.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/new_info.html</a>

He insists that it's not a gain of new information. It's a loss.

"the population has simply lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic.

There is a loss of information here, not a net gain of information.

No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.

Something has been lost, not gain. The population loses its ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. It is a loss, not a gain."

He also offers this bit of wisdom:

"And speaking of so-called "new information," we would do well to remind ourselves that there are at least three kinds of information in the world.

1. There is just random information. The background radiation from the big bang, just noise, static, or the distribution of sand on the seashore. These are just random. There is no pattern to it.

2. Then there is information that is cyclical and patterned, like salt crystals, for example.

There is certainly some order to it, but it is just constant, just repetitive. After awhile, it gets boring. There is no new information.

Amazingly, this was the type of example that Hermit used to illustrate supposed information that comes from a non-intelligence. Yet, the cyclical, repetitive information that produces salt crystals is coded into the laws of nature. It just keeps repeating itself. It is not new information.

3. Then there is a third type of information that has a certain degree of specified complexity. Language is like that. There is informational content, but it seems to be aimed at a purpose."

"Hermit" refers to another poster on the forum.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Blinn · 10-24-2002, 04:54 AM

How about the fish antifreeze gene? I seem to recall a thread on it from a year or more ago, but couldn't find it in a search of the archives.

Here's a link to the original paper however:

<a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/8/3811.pdf" target="_blank">Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish</a>

And a few summaries:

<a href="http://www.news.uiuc.edu:16080/archives/97.05/9705fishtip.html" target="_blank">Scientists trace roots of protein that keeps Antarctic fish from freezing</a>

<a href="http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpl/arcticnews/updates/antifreeze/antifreeze.htm" target="_blank">The Origin of Fish Antifreeze</a>

<a href="http://tea.rice.edu/schulz/12.4.1999.html" target="_blank">Molecular genetics of the antifreeze glycoprotein</a>

Anyone know where the thread on this gene is?

simian · 10-24-2002, 05:10 AM

The fish lost their sensitivity to dying due to freezing. Or so a hard-core YEC would claim. Sometimes I think I have no idea where this crap comes from. Then I put it back in perspective: "information theory" is one of the current buzz phrases in the creationist circles. The creationists talking about information theory seem to know less about information theory than those who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics know about thermodynamics. Ignorance is bliss, and those spouting such things seem (to me) to be quite blissful....

Simian

MrDarwin · 10-24-2002, 05:10 AM

I've been thinking about the "loss of information" thing for a while. It might be interesting to point out groups of plant species that are interfertile (and thus fitting the creationist definition of "kind"), but quite different in appearance--the silversword alliance on the Hawaiian islands, many orchids, Penstemons, Lobelias, etc.--and ask how they diverged to have adaptations to different environments or different pollinators with information being only lost, and never gained.

lpetrich · 10-24-2002, 05:29 AM

Another creationist contention is that gene duplications do not increase the information content of a genome; Ed is particularly fond of that contention.

In Ed's version of that "argument", a duplicated gene is like saying the same thing in a different way.

tgamble · 10-24-2002, 05:51 AM

He also gave me this story

Quote:

Furthermore, according to the Medical Tribune, December 29,m 1988, p. 1,23, it has been proven that reistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery.

In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteen-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived!

When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day anti-biotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.

How accurate is this? Obviously this trait isn't found in all populations or penicillin wouldn't work would it?

tgamble · 10-24-2002, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zetek:
<strong>How about the fish antifreeze gene? I seem to recall a thread on it from a year or more ago, but couldn't find it in a search of the archives.

Here's a link to the original paper however:

<a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/8/3811.pdf" target="_blank">Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish</a>

And a few summaries:

<a href="http://www.news.uiuc.edu:16080/archives/97.05/9705fishtip.html" target="_blank">Scientists trace roots of protein that keeps Antarctic fish from freezing</a>
</strong>

50$ says this quote will be used...

Quote:

Chi-Hing C. (Chris) Cheng of the U. of I. department of molecular and integrative physiology. "They are taken and reassembled into a new gene, with nothing really new being created.

MortalWombat · 10-24-2002, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1984 Apr;81(8):2421-5

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence.

Ohno S.

The mechanism of gene duplication as the means to acquire new genes with previously nonexistent functions is inherently self limiting in that the function possessed by a new protein, in reality, is but a mere variation of the preexisted theme. As the source of a truly unique protein, I suggest an unused open reading frame of the existing coding sequence. Only those coding sequences that started from oligomeric repeats are likely to retain alternative long open reading frames. Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium Sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein.

Quote:

Biochemistry 1996 Aug 13;35(32):10464-71

Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B.

Park IS, Lin CH, Walsh CT.

Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.

Escherichia coli D-Ala-D-Ala ligase (Ddl) and the vancomycin resistance-conferring protein VanA are homologues, but VanA has gained the ability to activate D-lactate (D-Lac) and make the depsipeptide D-Ala-D-Lac as well as D-Ala-D-Ala. This depsipeptide ligase activity of VanA is its crucial catalytic function necessary for phenotypic vancomycin resistance. We report here that three E. coli DdlB active-site mutants that we made previously based on X-ray structure/function predictions have gained interesting new ligase activities. Y216, S150, and E15 form a hydrogen-bonding triad that orients an omega-loop to close over the active site and also to orient substrate D-Ala1. Mutants Y216F and S150A have gained depsipeptide (D-Ala-D-Lac, D-Ala-D-hydroxybutyrate) ligase activity with dipeptide/depsipeptide partition ratios that mimic the pH behavior of VanA. E15Q has negligible depsipeptide synthetase activity but now uniquely activates D-Lac as the electrophilic rather than the nucleophilic partner for condensation with D-Ala to make a regioisomeric D-Lac-D-Ala, an amide rather than an ester product. These results provide insights into the active-site architecture of the ligases and the subsites for recognition of D-Ala VS D-Lac and predict the Y216F substitution will impart D-Ala-D-Lac synthetase activity to Ddls from Grampositive bacteria with intrinsic resistance to vancomycin.

MortalWombat · 10-24-2002, 06:06 AM

Here's another one:

Quote:

Nature 1998 Dec 10;396(6711):572-5

Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila.

Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, Hartl DL.

Harvard University, Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. dnurminsky@oeb.harvard.edu

The pattern of genetic variation across the genome of Drosophila melanogaster is consistent with the occurrence of frequent 'selective sweeps', in which new favourable mutations become incorporated into the species so quickly that linked alleles can 'hitchhike' and also become fixed. Because of the hitchhiking of linked genes, it is generally difficult to identify the target of any putative selective sweep. Here, however, we identify a new gene in D. melanogaster that codes for a sperm-specific axonemal dynein subunit. The gene has a new testes-specific promoter derived from a protein-coding region in a gene encoding the cell-adhesion protein annexin X (AnnX), and it contains a new protein-coding exon derived from an intron in a gene encoding a cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chain (Cdic). The new transcription unit, designated Sdic (for sperm-specific dynein intermediate chain), has been duplicated about tenfold in a tandem array. Consistent with the selective sweep of this gene, the level of genetic polymorphism near Sdic is unusually low. The discovery of this gene supports other results that point to the rapid molecular evolution of male reproductive functions

theyeti · 10-24-2002, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>A creationist I'm talking to wanted examples of new genetic information. I gave him this.

<a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/new_info.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/new_info.html</a>

He insists that it's not a gain of new information. It's a loss.

"the population has simply lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic.

There is a loss of information here, not a net gain of information.

No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
</strong>

This is a curious (and stupid) argument. The classic "information" denial argument doesn't recognize variants as new information. Indeed, by most definitions of information, every new mutation will increase information within the population. Selection then reduces it. Creationists using the information argument have always dismissed this as mere "variation" and claimed that no new information has appeared. They've always demanded examples where individual X has a genome with more information than individual Y. Those examples are pretty easy to give. Any bacterium whose antibiotic resistance comes from a new gene, such as would be found on a plasmid, is an example of this. Now you've got a joker who dismisses the latter but tries to argue the former.

Try this: Ask him if the bacteria start off in an intial state where they have no resistance, and then acquire resistance, does the period in which half of the population is resistant and half not resistant equal more or less information than the initial state? Or if he won't take the bait on that one, ask him if a resistant population, allowed to mutate, doesn't gain information because one or more of its members loses its resistance. The argument he's put forth is so lame that any genetic disease represents an increase in information, according to him.

Quote:

In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteen-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived!

When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day anti-biotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.[

This sounds highly suspicious. Ask to see the original source. Creationists are notorious for passing urban ledgends along as fact.

At any rate, it doesn't matter. De novo antibiotic resistance has been observed to occur in lab populations bunches of times, so it's clearly a case of the new "information" or whatever evolving.

theyeti

10-24-2002, 04:06 AM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	new genetic information a loss of information. A creationist I'm talking to wanted examples of new genetic information. I gave him this. <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/new_info.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/new_info.html</a> He insists that it's not a gain of new information. It's a loss. "the population has simply lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. There is a loss of information here, not a net gain of information. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost. Something has been lost, not gain. The population loses its ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. It is a loss, not a gain." He also offers this bit of wisdom: "And speaking of so-called "new information," we would do well to remind ourselves that there are at least three kinds of information in the world. 1. There is just random information. The background radiation from the big bang, just noise, static, or the distribution of sand on the seashore. These are just random. There is no pattern to it. 2. Then there is information that is cyclical and patterned, like salt crystals, for example. There is certainly some order to it, but it is just constant, just repetitive. After awhile, it gets boring. There is no new information. Amazingly, this was the type of example that Hermit used to illustrate supposed information that comes from a non-intelligence. Yet, the cyclical, repetitive information that produces salt crystals is coded into the laws of nature. It just keeps repeating itself. It is not new information. 3. Then there is a third type of information that has a certain degree of specified complexity. Language is like that. There is informational content, but it seems to be aimed at a purpose." "Hermit" refers to another poster on the forum. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-24-2002, 04:54 AM	#2
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	How about the fish antifreeze gene? I seem to recall a thread on it from a year or more ago, but couldn't find it in a search of the archives. Here's a link to the original paper however: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/8/3811.pdf" target="_blank">Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish</a> And a few summaries: <a href="http://www.news.uiuc.edu:16080/archives/97.05/9705fishtip.html" target="_blank">Scientists trace roots of protein that keeps Antarctic fish from freezing</a> <a href="http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpl/arcticnews/updates/antifreeze/antifreeze.htm" target="_blank">The Origin of Fish Antifreeze</a> <a href="http://tea.rice.edu/schulz/12.4.1999.html" target="_blank">Molecular genetics of the antifreeze glycoprotein</a> Anyone know where the thread on this gene is?

10-24-2002, 05:10 AM	#3
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	The fish lost their sensitivity to dying due to freezing. Or so a hard-core YEC would claim. Sometimes I think I have no idea where this crap comes from. Then I put it back in perspective: "information theory" is one of the current buzz phrases in the creationist circles. The creationists talking about information theory seem to know less about information theory than those who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics know about thermodynamics. Ignorance is bliss, and those spouting such things seem (to me) to be quite blissful.... Simian

10-24-2002, 05:10 AM	#4
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	I've been thinking about the "loss of information" thing for a while. It might be interesting to point out groups of plant species that are interfertile (and thus fitting the creationist definition of "kind"), but quite different in appearance--the silversword alliance on the Hawaiian islands, many orchids, Penstemons, Lobelias, etc.--and ask how they diverged to have adaptations to different environments or different pollinators with information being only lost, and never gained.

10-24-2002, 05:29 AM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Another creationist contention is that gene duplications do not increase the information content of a genome; Ed is particularly fond of that contention. In Ed's version of that "argument", a duplicated gene is like saying the same thing in a different way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.