|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Both evolutionists and creationists agree that most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and only a very small proportion are beneficial.
Actually we probably underestimate the number of harmful mutations if we don't count those that result in early miscarriage; and I understand there are a lot of these in humans. However even the very few beneficial mutations are usually information losing in some way.Adult lactose tolerance is a defect in regulation of lactase which should cease after weaning. Sickle cell trait is a defect in red blood cells that has an incidental benefit in resisting malaria. For evolution; microbes → man; to work requires addition of large amounts of genetic information. Of course devolution; man → microbes; will work with loss of genetic information. Moving microbes to man requires thousands of new proteins. A major problem is that functional proteins appear to be exceedingly rare in the space of all proteins. Axe estimated it to be about 1/10^77. This makes de novo production of new proteins practically impossible. Even minor changes in existing are unlikely if more than a few non beneficial steps separate beneficial ones. Evolutionists usually appeal to large numbers of organisms and deep time to overcome these probabilistic barriers but the Denton has estimated that only 10^40 proteins could have existed in all of earth's history and this is simply not enough to make the evolution story plausible. You are unlikely to find fossil remains that show clear deleterious mutations. First because many are lethal in the embryonic stage and then many more will be eliminated early in life. In any case we would expect clearly deleterious mutations to be a minority in a population and hence unlikely to be in the small proportion fossilised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
@RAZD, @Pressie, @ Dr Adequate
How is information defined, quantified, measured, and what are the units of measurement? You are suggesting that without these data information can't be said to be gained or lost. Is there such a thing as beauty? Can one woman be more beautiful than another? But how is beauty defined, quantified, measured, and what are the units of measurement? I have a copy of Origin of Species. Do I have information on the subject of evolution? If I buy a copy of Why Evolution is True do I have more information? (You could possibly argue I now have less information.) Claude Shannon did find a way of measuring information but he acknowledged that this did not include any consideration of meaning. The normal use of information, and the way I have used it, implies meaning so Shannon Information is not a measure of information. (But it was relevant for the purpose Shannon was using it for.) A dictionary and a recipe book could have the same number of words and the same Shannon Information but if I want to bake a cake one is more useful to me than the other. That is specified information. So we don't have to precisely define, quantify, and measure information for it to be real and for us to talk comparatively about gain or loss of information. E Coli has a genome of ~5e6 base pairs and ~5000 genes. Humans have a genome of ~3e9 base pairs and ~20,000 genes. There is little doubt that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome. So I can say that For evolution; microbes → man; to work requires addition of large amounts of genetic information. Of course devolution; man → microbes; will work with loss of genetic information. without being able to actually define, quantify, or measure with units the precise amount of information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
There are two ways in which a coin can land on its side, heads or tails. But, there are a almost an infinite number of ways that the coin could land one of the many places along its edge. Therefore, it is practically impossible for a coin flip to land on heads or tails. Errr, no. It is quite obvious that the probability of landing on an edge is infinitesimal in the total result space. Rather the analogy would be that finding a functional proteins would correspond to a flipped coin landing on its edge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
No. have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So, according to you the bigger the number of base pairs together with the bigger the number of genes the 'more the genetic information' an organism has? Is that how you quantify "genetic information"? That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating. Of course I am aware of the C-value paradox. Ohno and others argued that it was due to an accumulation of junk DNA. However the whole idea of junk DNA has taken a hammering in recent years, but perhaps it does provide part of the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I too think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes, because the human DNA contains the information to form specific tissues, organs, and the layout of the human body, all missing from the E. coli DNA.
However I don't think that genetic information is directly proportional to size of the genome, just as I don't think the information contained in a book is directly proportional to the weight or word count. It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Functional proteins do form today in cells because they are specified and constructed by cellular machinery. Proteins don't form from random pieces randomly coming together and joining mechanically.
However novel functional proteins seem to be exceedingly rare. An attempt by Axe to quantify this was the point of his research. Even quite minor changes are beyond the reach of the mutation/selection mechanism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
It's a lot more than "chemical doing chemistry". If that was all the frog in a blender experiment should work. Have a look at ATP synthaze for example. It is a nanotechnology machine powered by a flow of protons through a turbine.
The extreme rarity of functional proteins means that it is practically impossible to get from one functioning protein to another by incremental beneficial steps. Let alone explaining the appearance of the original protein.
And the same calculation done on the space of all coin landings shows us that coin flips landing on either the heads or tails side are exceedingly rare.
I assume you mean "neither the head or the tail".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
If that was all the frog in a blender experiment should work. Your reference is obscure and your reasoning absent. Put a frog in a blender and blend well. All the chemicals are there so the chemical reactions should continue if it's just chemicals doing chemistry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ea2d09r18o
The extreme rarity of functional proteins means that it is practically impossible to get from one functioning protein to another by incremental beneficial steps. Then it's strange how often it happens. Then you should have no problem giving 5 observed examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
If you mash up any chemical system you'll change the outcome of the chemical process.
Precisely. Life is more than just chemical reactions. Which are your 5 examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
You've got some nerve criticising my use of the Discovery Institute when you referenced a web site that doesn't even show the author's affiliations or qualifications. Next you'll be referencing Talk Origins.
[edit: I also note that site uses the definition "evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time". This is a definition specific to population genetics and is not suitable as a general definition as I made clear in my post at EvC Forum: How do you define the word Evolution? . Perhaps you'd like to give your definition in that thread] Ann Gauger is a zoologist with a BS in biology from MIT and a 1989 PhD from the University of Washington. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The podcast I linked directly addresses one of the proteins mentioned in your link. Edited by CRR, : para added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024