Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures

I agree with jar that you've got some of the argument wrong: DNA cannot "learn from its mistakes".You have also omitted an important part of the argument: natural selection. Bad mutations will not persist long in the gene pool, because they are bad. Consequently, if a species did have a 10:1 ratio of bad mutations to good ones, this would not cause it problems, indeed it would improve over time. (Unless it had a small fixed population --- I mean really small, like low double figures. In that case a "genetic meltdown" would be possible.)I would add that before you can judge any scientific theory as being right or wrong, you need to know exactly what it says. I have seen someone on the internet reject the law of conservation of energy --- because he didn't know the difference between energy and force! So when you're talking about the theory of evolution, and on the one hand you say that DNA "learns from its mistakes", and on the other hand you never mention natural selection, then you're getting it wrong, and until you know exactly what the theory says you shouldn't be convinced either way. Even if I convince you that it's right --- which I would like to --- you'd be a sucker to believe that it's right on my say-so if you don't really know what it is. That's quite small. Nor would be expect it to be large. Look at our own species, and see how many disadvantageous mutations would be visible in the fossil record. Most clear disadvantageous mutations are diseases of metabolic function. (It is likely that in fact most disadvantageous mutations simply prevent gestation.)Then consider those mutations that would show up in the fossil record, such as achondroplasic dwarfism. We would certainly notice it, but even in that case we would only know that it was the record of a disadvantageous mutation because we already know that that's what achondroplasic dwarfism is, if you see what I mean. So if we found a fossil trilobite (say) that had suffered a similar mutation, we wouldn't in fact say "here is a trilobite with a deleterious mutation", we'd say "here is a new species of trilobite".And then if we did find something clearly wrong, it might not be clear whether it was a mutant. Here, for example, is a two-headed fossil. Surely, you say, surely this is a clear example of a deleterious mutation. Nope, it's probably a developmental disorder. But without knowing whether the condition is heritable, how would we tell for sure?I hope this helps.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, y'know, epistemological quibbles aside, I am fairly sure that the Earth is not flat; I am certain enough that I have basically stopped thinking about the question. In practice, we regard some questions as closed.(You may reply that by participating in this forum I am in practice treating evolution as an open question, to which I would reply that yeah, that is kind of an odd hobby I have here. Which is why this is a fairly small forum.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But I am slightly puzzled, now I think about it. Why in the world would the answer to this question, of all questions, resolve the issue in your mind once and for all? Why is this the crucial question?Its relevance is so obscure that I can't even see which way the answer would sway you. If I tell you that there are few clear examples of deleterious mutations preserved in the fossil record, would that make you (a) a convinced evolutionist (b) a die-hard creationist?(I'm guessing (a), but I do vaguely recall Anne Coulter saying that the paucity of such fossils is an argument against evolution. But then she's a moron and you are not.)

Pressie. You know how much I owe to you, and how deeply I respect you --- but shut up. Why should we mind if someone asks questions about a matter of fact? We have the answers. Sit down.What if he did start asking questions about the creationist nonsense about "genetic information"? --- which he might, now you've tipped him off. The greatest single destruction ever of that line of argument was written on these forums, by me. I am ready and willing to answer any questions he may ask on that subject.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, he does follow up to a certain extent. But yeah, he doesn't follow up so much. Which is what makes me think that he's asking perfectly honest questions. When I answer his questions, in detail and at length, then a creationist would unleash a Gish Gallop and this thread would keep us all entertained for the next three months. But if he is, as he appears to be, a genuine seeker after facts, then he's got 'em, so he can leave it at that.This worry about why he's asking questions does not show our side at all in a good light. The fact that we can answer them all does.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nonetheless the title of your post is somewhat ... rhetorical, shall we say? As in not true?

That's not unbelievable at all. That's what the tracts are for! It would be strange if none of them ever fulfilled its exact function.Try and imagine you don't really know anything about the "controversy". (This is a worthwhile effort. One of the hardest things for someone who wishes to teach a subject is to remember what it was like to know nothing about it.) Then you read a creationist tract. Here you find someone making confident statements about genetics, and the fossil record, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and so on. It is on the face of it hard to believe that a grown man sat down and wrote this stuff, with bland, confident assurance, and had it published to instruct the general public, and yet had never researched any of the topics sufficiently to even be using the vocabulary correctly. That is hard to believe! It is more plausible on the face of it to think that there must be arguments on both sides, or one side wouldn't be arguing.

How are you quantifying information? An assertion which is literally meaningless unless you tell us how you're quantifying information. You're not going to show your working?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Are you trying to suggest that the amount of information in a genome is a mere subjective opinion like which of two women is prettier?Then what use do you wish to make of the concept in a discussion of science? When you say that "mutations are usually information losing", how would that be different from me saying "Eyeshadow usually makes women less attractive"? If the information in a genome is not an objective fact about it, but a subjective feeling you have about it, then what relevance does it have for science? Suppose I were to reply that I personally feel that most mutations increase information, what then? Wouldn't we just have to say "ah well, tastes differ"? So, would you like the size of the genome to be the measure of the amount of information in it? That would be fine by me, the standard creationist blather about information is false given any coherent definition of it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nope. Your reference is obscure and your reasoning absent. Then it's strange how often it happens. Some people have tried to explain this with reference to the activity of an invisible wizard who lives in the sky, but of course that just raises the question of what processes could produce an invisible sky-wizard.

If you mash up any chemical system you'll change the outcome of the chemical process. 'Cos of, you know, breaking the test-tubes and stuff. Smash it to pieces, it won't work any more than the frog does. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Yeah, there's also pixie dust and unicorn farts ... wait, no there isn't, what's your point? If you didn't read it, I suggest you do so.

I think the peer-reviewed scientific papers may be more accurate than a failed propaganda organization. But if you think they have any good points backed up by actual evidence, please do present the evidence.

But we can assume he's not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, so he's got that going for him. Also copious references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.I note that you declined my invitation; let me repeat it: "if you think they have any good points backed up by actual evidence, please do present the evidence."I have in fact heard of Ann Gauger. Here she is in a Discovery Institute video, standing in front of what appears to be a Real Scientific Laboratory Where Science People Do Science ... ... but which is in fact a stock photograph.It is hard to think of a more perfect metaphor for "creation science".