Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 86 of 908 (441889)
12-19-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Elmer
12-19-2007 6:51 AM


Re: Genetic balderdash
Elmer writes:
The point of my example is obvious [to everyone but you, apparently].
And me. When our ancestors started to walk upright and develop forelimbs and hands that were good for tool use, they sacrificed the ability to move efficiently on all fours, and became very clumsy tree swingers. But the advantages outweighed the disadvantages in their environmental circumstances.
Same with giraffes. The advantages of the longer necks and legs outweighed the disadvantages.
The mutations confer considerable variety between individuals in a population group, and over time, natural selection means that the average phenotype will change to suit changes in the environment, or remain very similar once well suited to an unchanging environment.
If your descendants develop forelimbs that are wings millions of years hence, they'll have to sacrifice the ability to type things on a keyboard and many other useful things, so flying will have to be of overriding importance for that to happen.
Isn't all this obvious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 6:51 AM Elmer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 10:16 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 170 of 908 (810292)
05-27-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by CRR
05-27-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Definitions (or not)
CCR writes:
I'm not sure how they define gain-of-function mutations except as they relate to colour. This is not necessarily the same as a gain of functional information. A broken switch can result in a light that is always on or always off, but the switch is still broken. Since "This difference is controlled in large part by the interaction of two proteins, the melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) and the agouti-signaling protein" the mutations could prevent normal interaction of this system; the equivalent to a broken switch.
It's automatically a gain of functional information because there's a new function in the population, but it hasn't gone to fixation and replaced the old. Mice of two different colours require more functional information than monochrome mice.
However, you cannot quantify the new functional information in the way suggested in the Hazen/Szostak paper you linked to here in full unless you know the proportion of all proteins of the Mc1r length that would produce the function "dark mouse".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by CRR, posted 05-27-2017 4:10 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by CRR, posted 05-28-2017 6:11 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 172 of 908 (810386)
05-29-2017 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by CRR
05-28-2017 6:11 PM


Re: Definitions (or not)
CRR writes:
More likely a loss of function since the interaction between the melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) and the agouti-signaling protein has been lost.
There's more functional information in the population as a whole if both light and dark mice are present than if there's just one colour. However, whether one color group or the other has the higher (Hazen paper) functional information content would be determined by what proportion of all proteins (of that size) could perform the same function. If the proportion that could give "dark" was higher than that for "light", dark would have lower functional information, and vice versa.
So, if the new dark allele went to fixation, we'd need more information to tell us whether there would have been an increase or decrease in "Hazen/Szostak" functional information.
CRR writes:
You accept then that it is in principal possible to measure genetic functional information in at least some cases.
As defined by Hazen/Szostak, "functional information" in general, yes. In individual English words that have only one meaning, it could be measured by counting the synonyms. The more synonyms, the less functional information. It's difficult for coding genes/proteins in practical terms, because of the difficulties of finding out what proportion of random sequences would perform the function.
Szostak and Co. have attempted it for the function of ATP binding, and came up with an estimate of 1 in ~10^11 for functional proteins. If that kind of figure applied to performing a mouse Mc1r function, you can imagine the difficulties of actually trying out 10^12 or more random sequences in order to get a statistically significant percentage one way or the other for "dark" and "light". Whichever has the highest percentage would be the set of alleles with the least Hazen functional information content, like the words with the most synonyms.
Szostak's ~1 in 10^11 estimate is in keeping with the evidence that new coding genes do form from random "junk", as well as by neo-functionlization on duplicates of existing genes.
If the arrival of new genes via mutations isn't "statistically significant", then "statistically significant" information would never have been required in our life system. Macro-evolution by your chosen definition wouldn't be necessary.
So, what is statistically significant?
Kirk Durston makes the mistake of assuming that only proteins in an existing protein family will perform a given function, then estimating the variants of that family that would perform the function, then subtracting that from the total of all sequences. That's a good way of getting a very low proportion of the total, and therefore very high "functional information" content. That is then made into an improbability argument against evolution which appears to convince some creationists, but not biologists who know that unrelated proteins can perform the same functions.
He would probably regard a new functional protein as being statistically significant if less than 1 in 10^43 random sequences could produce the function (that figure's based on estimates of the total mutations to have taken place in our life system). In which case, there's no reason to believe that macro-evolution, by his definition, has ever been required in this life system or would be in any other protein based life system.
Edited by bluegenes, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by CRR, posted 05-28-2017 6:11 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by CRR, posted 05-29-2017 6:09 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 174 of 908 (810392)
05-29-2017 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by CRR
05-29-2017 6:09 AM


Re: Definitions (or not)
CRR writes:
This is NOT a new gene. This is at best a new allele of the existing MC1R gene.
I didn't say it was a new gene. Try my post again, and you'll see that the reference to new genes was in relation to the production of additional genes by de novo formation from "junk" or duplication and neo-functionalization. I'd moved on to the crux of the issue!
CRR writes:
It is also probably a defective version of the existing MC1R as I've already said.
"Defective" would mean producing a disadvantaged phenotype, and the two phenotypes are advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the two environments, so neither allele is objectively defective.
The Hazen/Szostak measurement of functional information in the new "dark mouse" allele would be arrived at by establishing what proportion of random protein sequences could be inserted to produce the "dark mouse" function. If that was known, it can be inserted into their formula and divided into the total of sequence space to give the functional information value. That would then be the measure of functional information increase while both alleles remained in the population, but that does not mean that the dark mice have more functional information than the light ones, or the other way around, as I tried to explain in the first post.
Adding new functional genes (increasing their quantity) is what usually interests creationists, because it would be part of the necessary increase in functional information from organisms with a handful of coding genes to modern complex eukaryotes that can have tens of thousands. So that's why I skipped ahead.
That's what people like Kirk Durston are interested in, and that's what he is trying to make his definition of micro-evolution to exclude, and describe as macro-evolution, which he argues is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by CRR, posted 05-29-2017 6:09 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by CRR, posted 05-29-2017 8:20 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 176 of 908 (810405)
05-29-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by CRR
05-29-2017 8:20 AM


Re: Definitions (or not)
CRR writes:
bluegenes writes:
"Defective" would mean producing a disadvantaged phenotype,
Incorrect. Defective means no longer performing the original function, nor an improved one".
Why? Neutral isn't defective.
CRR writes:
Many cases of antibiotic resistance come from a defect that disables a feature, such as a binding site, that the antibiotic needs to be effective.
Why is it objectively "defective" if its effect depends on the parasite's environment?
CRR writes:
In the mouse case the new allele is defective since the interaction with the agouti-signaling protein no longer works.
It works differently, not "defectively", or "no longer".
CRR writes:
It is a defect but the result is beneficial when the mouse lives in the dark lava fields. However it is a disadvantage on the lighter coloured sand. Benefit depends on environment.
Substitute "change" for "defect", and you can have an understanding of Darwinian adaptation prize for those two sentences.
Are you sure you are understanding the concept of "functional information" in the same way that the Hazen paper describes it? You linked to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by CRR, posted 05-29-2017 8:20 AM CRR has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 198 of 908 (811162)
06-05-2017 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by CRR
05-31-2017 8:02 AM


Minimum Macro
CRR writes:
There is no one canonical definition of micro- and macro-evolution. Elsewhere I have suggested that Durston's definitions might be used.
quote:
Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.
Let's look at what might be a minimum of "statistically significant" functional information.
1) A mutation or mutations gives an existing gene a new allele with a new function, changing the phenotype.
2) A duplication adds an extra copy of an existing coding gene that makes the same protein as the original, but does change the phenotype in that it increases the expression of the protein.
3) A duplication adds an extra copy of an existing coding gene which then mutates, diverging from the original, and adding a function which changes the phenotype. (2 followed by 1)
Which, if any, would involve a statistically significant increase in functional information?
Edited by bluegenes, : missing word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by CRR, posted 05-31-2017 8:02 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 5:03 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 200 of 908 (811303)
06-06-2017 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by CRR
06-06-2017 5:03 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
CRR writes:
Durston in the link previously given says that both "statistically significant" and "functional information" are measurable and provides links. Go back and re-read my previous posts.
I've already read them, and it's clear from them that you don't understand the Hazen paper on functional information that you linked to, because if you did, you'd understand that Durston does not have a way of measuring functional information. He just assumes, wrongly, that only one protein family can perform a given function, so he comes up with figures that have nothing to do with reality, or to do with the Hazen paper, which he is well known for continually mentioning, and continually misinterpreting.
It's well known that unrelated proteins can perform the same functions.
Now that you know this, you can write to Durston, tell him you're a creationist, and tell him what he has got wrong. Currently, he's misleading a lot of people like you.
To calculate the functional information in the examples in my last post, it would be necessary to find out the proportion of all proteins in sequence space that would perform the same function, and that's not easy to do. Durston has never done this for any specific function, I can assure you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 5:03 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 9:49 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 202 of 908 (811314)
06-06-2017 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by CRR
06-06-2017 9:49 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
CRR writes:
Fell free to contact Durston yourself.
Why would I want to? He hasn't misled me. I assumed you'd want to put one of your fellow creationists right, now you understand his mistake.
Or do you understand?
I explained it about a week ago in Message 172, yet you keep on referring to him. Strange.
bluegenes in msg172 writes:
Kirk Durston makes the mistake of assuming that only proteins in an existing protein family will perform a given function, then estimating the variants of that family that would perform the function, then subtracting that from the total of all sequences. That's a good way of getting a very low proportion of the total, and therefore very high "functional information" content. That is then made into an improbability argument against evolution which appears to convince some creationists, but not biologists who know that unrelated proteins can perform the same functions.
I assume that you didn't know that last bit in bold before, otherwise you should have seen where Durston was going wrong. Now that you do know, are you going to continue to refer to him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 9:49 PM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024