David, The different physical characteristics of individuals within a species is the result of microevolution. Microevolution is different from Darwinian Evolution.
As I've posted before, Darwinian Evolution says that random mutations cause changes that result in some feature that confer a survival advantage resulting in Natural Selection. Darwinian Evolution postulates that if you accumulate enough of these random changes, the individual becomes a "new" species. What a species is; we don't know other than the rough physical classifications we use. If something "looks" different from another, it's a different species. Such is the problem with Darwinian Evolution. Before we can say whether Darwinian Evolution is correct; we have to ask ourselves whether it is clear enough to be correct. Heck, we don't even know what a "species" is. The process of "species" classification is more an art and an exercise in consensus building. Before we can even say that Darwinian Evolution is correct and cram it down people's throats, ala AGW, we need to establish without a shadow of a doubt, what we mean by "species". We need to build a new "Genetic Classification" of species instead of our current physical features classification system. My friends, establish the science first before you cram it down people's throats. Microevolution on the other hand is in the simplest term called "adaptation". The changes occur because of genetic expression of what is ALREADY encoded in the DNA. When we turn black under the sun, that is not a random mutation of our DNA to give us black skin, that is an expression of what we already have. An organism can only change its features within the coding already in its DNA. Microevolution does not cause DNA changes, it causes expression of the changes that is dormant in the DNA. Microevolution is evolution within a species. It is extremely versatile as our DNA contains a lot of information for carrying out these changes. Hopefully, in the very near future, we should finish encoding the DNA of all animals and we can properly classify everything according to their DNA. I have told this true story before and I'll tell it again to really try to bring home this distinction. A few decades back, a group of scientists subjected a colony of E.Coli to stresses. One of the stresses was Streptomycin antibiotic. As expected, a bunch of E.Coli died, while a few seems to have resistance. These resistant cells then multiplied and they ended up with a colony that is now totally resistant to Streptomycin. Aha, definite proof of Darwinian Evolution. We have a new species of E.Coli. Champagne bottles began popping all over. At last, we can shut up all those crazy creationists. Darwinian Evolution has triumphed. On closer inspection, Streptomycin resistance was conferred by a single gene expression. The gene caused the creation of a single protein on the surface of the E.Coli cell that prevented Streptomycin from latching onto the cell wall to denature it and split it open. A single gene conferred the survival advantage. That single gene lied dormant in all E.Coli DNA and was expressed when the Streptomycin stress was applied. After Streptomycin was removed, the colony devolved back to its original streptomycin susceptible version. The gene became dormant again. There was no permanent change of E.Coli's DNA. Just expression of various genes. This is microevolution in action. This my friend is how we apparently have different species, when in fact, they are all the same species. For instance, I have a strong suspicion that a wolf and a domestic dog is probably one species. This would also explain how Noah seems to have been able to cram all these various species into his ark. He did not have to bring a pair of poodles, a pair of collies, a pair of German Shepherds, etc. He just brought in a pair of dogs, whatever it was, and that pair microevolved into the hundreds of canine varieties we have today. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Jojo, how does the theory that you believe in result in the different races of peoples? It seems likely that the darker complexion of those that typically live in areas of ample sunlight would give them an advantage due to protection from ultraviolet sunlight. I have also noticed that the inhabitants of the more northern regions tend to have lighter skin. The people of isolated regions develop characteristics that are different from the nominal such as the red haired Irish or the peoples of Iceland. Is it you belief that the various genes were already present within these groups but for some reason did not become widespread within the overall human population? I guess that this idea would be somewhat like the fact that dogs come in many breeds but most came from one stock which is the wolf. Is this the way you understand the situation? If you carry this to the extreme, a separate group of people that do not come into contact with the population at large might well become very different over eons. I can imagine that as time passes they would be subject to genetic mutations due to radiation, etc. that is not fatal but perhaps others in the group find attractive. Maybe the selection of future mates becomes influenced by this new mutation and they generate more children as a result to pass the trait along. Another possibility is that this new accidental change allows women to survive child birth better such as enlargement of the region where babies pass to be born. Immunity to certain diseases would be a real life saver to anyone that inherits that trait. The relatively recent introduction of the mutation that results in hemophilia was a reverse example of this process at work. The genetic mutation that causes that unfortunate disease is identified and I assume random. It seems that much depends upon the magnitude of the effect that the mutation causes to determine how successful it becomes within people at large. I would find it very difficult to believe that an entirely new animal would arise instantaneously in isolation since it would most likely take at least two of these new critters to continue with the species. This makes it unlikely for a quick change of great genetic variation to become successful. Slow incremental changes that occur randomly in isolated groups might be the trick if allowed to operate over millions of years. I believe that the fossil record tends to support this. There are many species of birds instead of one. That same is true for most animals it seems as I am often amazed at the number of kinds of snakes, lizards, cats, and etc. that inhabit the earth. How does you understanding apply to the many species of birds for instance? Some are remarkably similar but can not interbreed. Just by appearance alone it seems likely that each of these bird species are related in the distant past. Plants offer an enormous example of genetic variation and people have domesticated a large number of them. Take one look at the varieties of maple trees for example. I have a good friend that cultivates dozens of different types for sale. Currently all his maples can be fertilized by any maple, but if they were isolated for a few million years this might not be possible. Oak tree species exhibit a similar variation but can not cross pollinate. Back to the basic topic concept. Data encoded within DNA sounds like a great starting point for long term storage technology. We need to unravel the mechanisms that allow it to be accurately read and I suspect repaired when damaged. I assume it will be possible to use different materials for a similar structure which could allow the new engineered system to withstand high temperature for instance. I suspect that the rate of data storage must be improved by orders of magnitude before a practical solution is generated. My gut feeling is that there will be better methods developed involving optics. I have always felt that a technique such as perhaps 3 dimensional holograms will be capable of immense long term storage capability. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 4:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA The views expressed by Lomax below are typical of those who have not read Darwin's book or understand what Darwinian Evolution really says. Natural Selection is not the process of DNA building, it is the macro result of mutations. Mutations are the mechanism Darwin claims to be behind changes. The changes result in a survival advantage, hence Natural Selection occurs. Hence the process is in fact a random process. It is important for us to understand that Natural Selection does not occur at the cellular or DNA level. In other words, there is no Natural Selection mechanism to determine at the cellular/DNA level what random mutation is to be retained. That mutation has to cause a change in the macro organism that would confer a survival advantage before Natural Selection can be invoked. You can have many many many mutations or changes at the cellular level but only when changes confer a survival advantage does that mutation get retained. Retention of changes occur at the individual to offspring level - a macro level, not at the cellular/DNA level. If there is no reproduction, there is no Natural Selection. If there is no "survival advantage", there is no Natural Selection. If you understand this, you will understand how utterly impropable Darwinian Evolution is. If we have had infinite time, then yes Darwinian Evolution is possible, but we only have had 4 billion years since the creation of the Earth and 15 billion years since the creation of the Universe. Not enough time. (Note, that I do not personally subscribe the the 4 billion Earth age nor to the 15 billion age of the Universe. I just mention it to highlight the utter fallacy of Darwinian Evolution.) Jojo PS. BTW, I did not start this thread lest Lomax and Jouni will claim that I am starting a trolling thread again. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA >>Natural Selection can not explain how random process can originate >>information; let alone exabytes of information present in DNA in its >>natural state. > > Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of > information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set. > It's far, far less than that. > >>But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right because there's 2000 of >>them and nobody has heard on one of them being threatened or bribed. > > Gee, bringing in two separate contentious issues at once, like AGW and > Evolution. > > "Darwinian Evolution" uses the name of a person. Why? Do we care about > persons, or do we care about principles? > >> >> >>Jojo >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>Jed Rothwell >>To: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>vortex-l@eskimo.com >>Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM >>Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA >> >>Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part >>of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see: >> >><http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf>http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf >> >>This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with >>recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, >>with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it "the >>biggest best seller in history" in a sense. >> >>Quote: "DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode >>two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . ." >> >>I'd like to confirm I have the units right here -- >> >>Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in >>2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See: >> >><http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 >> >>(295 exabytes) >> >><http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q>http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q >> >>(2.7 ZB) >> >>I don't know what source to believe. >> >>This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of >>electricity. On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds >>the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is >>2.7 ZB. That seems like a large number until you realize that you could >>record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA. >> >>That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We >>have a lot of leeway. There is still "plenty of room at the bottom" as >>Feynman put it. >> >>DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy >>it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude. >> >>It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA >>recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or >>long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this >>technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading technology. >>Perhaps there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data storage. >>Maybe, but I would say why bother looking for them when nature has already >>found such a robust system? >> >>- Jed > >
