Wyz_sub10

A mutation can result in copied information, for example, which would 'add' something.

Think of typing the sentence:

"I can think of none."

It 'mutates' by copying some 'information' (through your clumsy typing) and becomes:

"I can think of noneone."

After a while, you again 'mutate' this 'information' (this time through truncation) and it becomes:

"I can think of one."

In two steps you have added/edited information to completely alter the meaning of this sentence.

In brief, you have created two 'organisms' - a negative response and a positive response, but doing nothing more than copying and deleting.

I realize that this is ridiculously simplistic, but I'm just trying to ilustrate that you need not necessarily have external input to change one thing into another.

Paul

simply saying a fish evolved fins because it has fins is not evidence for it evolving fins. But if you were to give me the amount of mutations needed to form the fin and the chance of that happening then we would be getting some where.

Paul

Although on adding of information would have to happen because on the whole Simple organisms mutated to more complex
organisms.

spazcow

i thought it worked in a way that we realize the world has not always been in its current state and therefore creatures that exist today could not have existed back then so they must have evolved as the world changed. but i don't think this helps your question of showing evidence. though i agree with an earlier post that said you can't really measure probability of evolution.

I thought the evidence for evolution was that organisms (in different environmets) are really closely related (identical in some form) except for a couple of things that are obviously beneficial for their environment. but that might not be evidence.

Wyz_sub10

I'm only trying to demonstrate that evolution happens in steps. If you want to see the connection between birds and lizards, for instance, you need to look at many, many steps in between.

The question you ask (mutations leading to fins) is not a simple one that can be answered in 5 or 6 sentences. I strongly advise you to read the articles I linked to above first.

Porbability is irrelevant. I think I've stressed that throughout, and I think the rationale I've given has been pretty clear. If you disagree, then perhaps we should discuss that issue. You continue to include 'chance of 'x' happening' in your questions as if it matters. It does not.

Wyz_sub10

We added information - 'none' became 'noneone'. I'm sure one could find analogies with words that show you could copy and truncate words and letters to move from simple to highly complex. I can't do that off the top of my head, and I'm not sure it's the ideal demonstration in any case.

For a better undferstanding, you need to check out the link on 'Mutations'. It offers a better picture of mutations that I can provide for you here.

Oolon Colluphid

Paul: perhaps you could define ‘information’ for us. What do you think it means in a biological context?

Godless Dave: I know what you’re getting at, but technically, it is natural selection that adds the information to the gene pool, by reducing the ‘prior uncertainty’ -- mutations increase the uncertainty.

Both of you, but especially Paul: Please read this article, which explains this ‘information’ business quite well.

And Paul: as I suggested in the other thread (where I covered this too), please read Scigirl’s 21 Jan 2002 post in this thread. That shows how evolution by natural selection cuts through the probability problem, by smearing out the ‘luck’ needed over thousands of generations. The probability between each step is low, because it is a small step; because selection means we only keep the improvements, the probability of moving from the improvement to the next step is similarly low, and so on.

Maybe we need a new thread. Paul, perhaps you could start one with your reply to this? Thanks.

Cheers, DT

Oolon Colluphid

Quite correct. But any bodily protruberance could offer extra stability in water, giving its owner a leg-up over its rivals.

Mind if I shift forward in time a little, to something we have a lot of fossil evidence for, evolving legs from fins? Try this thread for starters. (And a mere crudité it is; the real informational meat is available in vast quantities and great detail, when you’re ready.)

If we have good evidence for such large-scale evolution of one type of structure, surely this means that evolution in principle is correct? Anything we cannot yet explain is not helped by bringing in a ‘god of the gaps’.


No we wouldn’t. See my other posts on probability and the nature of cumulative selection.

Cheers, DT

Secular Pinoy

I always thought that mutation has always been the fount of genetic information, with Natural Selection being just a passive filter, winnowing those whose mutations were not "fit" enough.