I’m not a scientist, and don’t even have much informal education about this, besides some pop science stuff. But as far as I can understand, this is missing the point that DNA isn’t a book (although spoken and written language is so redundant that up to a a point even extensive garbage, duplications, etc, won’t effect the the abilty to ndrstnd wht s bng sd dnt you gurble agree?). It’s sort of a like a house blueprint that actually makes a house. If some of the details get changed, there might be a big problem – uh oh, no outside door! toliet draining into bedroom! loss of structural support!- it might not make a difference (unseen supporting beams are a different color), it might be an improvement – hey, a window there? I like that! There might be minute changes in insulation thickness, pipe material, wiring that might be improvements, problems, etc., depending on living conditions (thicker insulation in Alaska? Good. In Brazil? Maybe not?) But a lot more complex.

I don’t get ID creationism. It insists that things are very complex, yet very simple. Doesn’t seem interested in actually appreciating how cool thing are.

Any mutation *increases* the information content of the species genome. The assertion that the mutution reduces information content of the genome is contrafactual.

Natural selection then operates to reduce that information content over long periods of time by selecting for strongly advantageous mutations and selecting against strongly disadvantageous mutations.

This ebb and flow of information over time is how evolution works. The net result is a tendancy to increase the information content of all genomes summed across all species corresponding to biological diversity.

So, the data give us information about a speciation event. But creationists will lie and say that there is no proof that evolution will give speciation.

Creationists are liars, they forget that there is a Commandement to not lie inside the Bible. They will go to Hell. :p

João Carlos

Sorry the bad english, my native language is portuguese.

* Of course, other (mainstream) religious interpretations and traditions, as well as many non-religious systems, offer these values, often without pretending to be science out of some strange sense of aggrieved inferiority.

Now back to the science . . .

Frankly, I can’t understand what you’re saying. People have used genetics to study the relationship between different varieties and species of brassicas (although it gets a little hinky what with hybridization and weird plant stuff). They’re descended from a common ancestor, although in this case many of the changes result from artificial selection. Sugar and table beets are related to swiss chard, they’re related to spinach, and they’re related to lambquarters (Chenopodium spp.) (I may be garbling the details here, but this is the general idea). Common descent. What’s the problem?

In regard to the use of the word “evolution,” remember that for science, beet to sugar beet and goo* to you (I do love that phrase, although adding in ‘zoo’ makes it too unwieldy, methinks) is essentially the same thing.

* living goo, though. Evolution doesn’t deal with how life started, just what it did once it showed up.
___________

Something Carl is very good at is conveying the excitement – both of pure discovery and practical knowledge – of such research. Creationism, for its adherents, surely offers a kind of satisfaction, but it is of a very different nature. The scientific-wonder-and-productive-usefulness content of creationism seems to me to be essentially nil.

“So if we engineered Neu5Gc out of Chimps they might develop bigger brains? Cool.”
Great, just what we need, intelligent poop-flingers . . .

. . . wait. Don’t we have those already . . .?

Carl, any chance you’d toss something off here about recent work using genetic material extracted from ancient bones to work out evolutionary relationships, etc? Besides the thing with the horses, there was something cool released earlier this month about cougars, cheetahs, Miracinonyx and sabretooths . . . (oh my!)

Information Theory and Creationism
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

For examples of the evolution of new genes with new functions, which should count as “new genetic information” in anybody’s book, see:

Evolution of new information
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information

And don’t give us any rubbish about these just being examples of mere “reshuffling”. If you end up with two different genes with different functions, where you originally had one, you’ve got more “information”, using any reasonable definition.

Note to creationists: Not every writing on evolution is an attempt to your peculiar half-baked argument and quarter-baked definitions. In this post, was Zimmer trying to show how “new information”, whatever the creationists mean by that slogan, arises? Clearly not.

PS: On a completely different topic: The loss of Neu5Gc in the brains of hominids could simply be another step in malaria avoidance. Malaria gets particularly deadly when it gets into the brain.

…because the enzyme that converts the precursor Neu5Ac into Neu5Gc doesn’t work. We still carry the gene for the enzyme, but it became mutated…

This change is a result of a loss of function. This is an example of a mutation that provides a benefit, at least initially, but does nothing to suggest that new function is evolving, only “disolving”.

Carl goes on to say:

But this relief did not last, the scientists argue. Sometimes mutant parasites emerged that did a better job of latching onto the one sugar hominids still made, Neu5Ac…But at the same time, they surrendered the ability to infect other apes, such as chimpanzees.

This event is not quite as specific as the previous one but it may share a similar problem. The change resulted in some of the parasites having a greater affinity for the Neu5Ac sugar but it came at a cost. The net result is that it is better at doing something that it already did which doesn’t suggest the emergence of a new ability only the honing of a skill which came at the cost of losing function.

Carl writes, “This new research is yet another example of how studying evolution yields new insights into medicine.”

This is an excellent example of the vague use of the term evolution. In saying “evolution” the audience generaly assumes a molecules-to-man or common descent definition. The truth is, in the first event, this is merely an instance of a loss of genetic information through mutation. While less is described about the second event it appears to be the result of natural selection selecting genes with greater affinity for Neu5Ac. Similar to the “unnatural” selection of farmers when attempting to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. The genetic information already existed. It is therefore not evidence for common descent. If the research were conducted under a creationist methodology the result would be the same.

For a short article summarizing the creationist view on genetics I encourage you to read this article by Dr Lane P. Lester. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and holds a Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University, and M.S. in ecology.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution

Incidently, I hope you don’t mind me referring to you as Carl instead of the more formal Mr Zimmer. It should not be regarded as a lack of respect. Your style strikes me as someone laid back enough not to care. There certainly are those that would take it as being condescending in nature. They would be wrong, but I’m happy to address you however you prefer.