Hope I dont sound stupid

Sure but can you give an example of where information was gained?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slartibartfast

It's a common misunderstanding.

Evolution is purely change over time. There is no implied value. Information can increase or decrease. The only criteria is the success of the population in question. Superfluity of function can be wasteful, and so skills, instincts, and even organs can be a waste of tissue...hence whale's loss of feet, snake's loss of legs, and horse's loss of toes. They lack the genetic information to create those items, because it was unecessary for their survival, and was eliminated.

---

Well put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelby

Sure but can you give an example of where information was gained?

---

Natural Selection doesn't really create new information as slartibartfast pointed out. Instead natural selection acts on the tremendous amount of variation and information already in a genome. It hones and streamlines the information over generations to produce a population of organisms that have adaptations that allow those organisms to better survive and reproduce in their environment.

Just because natural selection doesn't create information or variation, doesn't mean that there are not mechanisms in evolutionary theory that account for the generation of new information. Novel variation/new information is created by the various types of mutation as well as gene duplication. Genes within an organism that are related by a duplication event are said to be paralogs. Hemoglobin (oxygen transporting protein in blood) and myglobin (oxygen transporting protein in muscle) are paralogs.

Also see http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm for a good example of new information created by (frameshift) mutation. Some populations of bacteria have evolved the ability to metabolize (eat) nylon via a frameshift mutation. Nylon is a man-made chemical that wasn't present on earth before the 1930s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panthercz

All of our pet dogs were domesticated from wild species and selectively bred over the years to become the pet's we now know today. There are no wild poodles, pugs, german shepards, dalmatians, etc in the wild and there never were any.

How you go from a wolf or fox to a poodle is a great example of genetic engineering and evolution rolled into one. Line breeding or selective breeding is by the way, just a longer version of genetic engineering. And the dramatic changes that occur along the way are inherent of evolution.
There have been experiments that showed how quickly you can go from something like a wild fox, to a human friendly pet that didn't even look like it's wild counterpart in just a matter of 30 or so years, by just selective breeding.
So take a wild fox or wolf and do the same thing but instead of having only 30 years, do it over 3,000 years. That is how we end up with so many different types of dogs that for the most part all came from the same wild ancestors.

The same goes for most domestic animals such as cats, horses, cows, goats, pigs, etc. They all came from a few wild ancestors but over the years have become the many various breeds you see today.

---

I do agree with the idea selective breeding and line breeding created the vast array of dog breeds we have today. However, the initial transition from wolf to dog may have been more of a cooperative synergy between humans and proto-dogs than a conscious, deliberate domestication effort on the part of early human societies. See the following articles.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dog/garbage.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dog/slideshow.html

The first linked article makes a good case that the wolves that became dogs may have had more to do with their domestication than humans. Sorta a self-domestication to take advantage of the new niche offered by human settlements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by python.princess

from what i've heard, they all started as wolves, foxes, or dingos.

---

Yea to the first and third, and a few more 'breeds', but no to the foxes. A fox doesnt have enough chromozomes to breed with, or simply to even a a dog.. Im pretty sure that canines have 73 chromozomes (give or take a few), and foxes have less.

So no, I dont think foxes are consiterd canines.. But all of that other stuff is. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Well put.
Natural Selection doesn't really create new information as slartibartfast pointed out. Instead natural selection acts on the tremendous amount of variation and information already in a genome. It hones and streamlines the information over generations to produce a population of organisms that have adaptations that allow those organisms to better survive and reproduce in their environment.

---

Agreed.

As for the nylon digesting bacteria..

A loss in information can actually give a bacteria that ability. Same deal with developing resistances to antibiotics.

All that needs to happen is a digestive enzyme recieving a mutation which renders it less specific.. enzymes fit their respective molecules sort of like a key. A slightly less specific one could bond with a new molecule (for instance nylon) thus giving the bacterium the ability to digest a new substance. The enzyme is going to be a bit less efficient however, at performing its original job. Both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide (ammonia derived) links.. so it's quite concievable that the enzyme could mutate to digest nylon.

Another example is sickle cell anemia. This mutates the red blood corpuscles into a sickle shape. This renders anyone with this mutation immune to malaria, however it makes the hemoglobin less efficient in carrying oxygen.. not the best thing! Sickle cell anemia is co-dominant, and people who are heterozygous for it have minimal harm from the mutation, while still reaping the benefit of malaria immunity.