Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can mutation and selection increase information?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 82 of 222 (815980)
07-27-2017 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by CRR
07-27-2017 7:06 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
CRR writes:
He says that there are no examples of random mutations increasing information in the genome.
He could say that there is an invisible fire breathing dragon in his garage. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
Why don't you DEMONSTRATE that random mutations can not produce new information.
However there are inbuilt mechanisms that can cause non-random genetic changes to respond to environmental events.
Examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 07-27-2017 12:50 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 83 of 222 (815981)
07-27-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Vlad
07-27-2017 5:17 AM


Re: Can mutation and selection increase information?
Vlad writes:
And yet, would the clone revolution be able to spontaneously evolve to such complex form as, say, counterrevolution?
A BLASTp search for "revolution" in the human genome doesn't turn up any matches for human proteins. Does this mean that the human genome does not contain any information?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Vlad, posted 07-27-2017 5:17 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 84 of 222 (815982)
07-27-2017 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
07-27-2017 11:25 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
New Cat's Eye writes:
It's similar for mutations. The physical organism is what interacts with the environment and the mutations are to the genome that is buried deep within. The mutations may not, technically, be random in that there are causes for them, but from the perspective of the environment and its interactions with the physical organism, the mutations have the appearance of being random from the perspective of the environment.
I think it is more accurate to say that the mechanisms which cause mutations are not guided by what the organism needs in a given environment. The organism can not sense which mutations it needs, and then produce those mutations, and only those mutations.
It is a bit like a game of craps. The person throwing the dice (in a fair game) is not able to guide the dice so that they produce the numbers that people have bet on. Like the coin flip, knowing the precise forces exerted onto the dice would allow us to predict the outcome of the roll, but the important part is whether the roller is able to manipulate the roll to produce a beneficial outcome. The same for mutations, which are random with respect to fitness in the same way that a roll of the dice are random with respect to the placement of the chips on the craps table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2017 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 87 of 222 (815994)
07-27-2017 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by JonF
07-27-2017 12:50 PM


Re: random and non-random mutations
JonF writes:
Probably referring to the (irrelevant) fact that in many situations environmental stress can increase mutation rates.
Probably. Most people I have seen who argue for non-random mutations focus on the increased rates of beneficial mutations, but they tend to ignore that there is also an increased rate of neutral and [detrimental] mutations that go along with it. To use an analogy, it is like a poor person buy 100 lottery tickets instead of just 1. The lottery is still random even though someone can increase their chances of winning by increasing the number of attempts.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 07-27-2017 12:50 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 07-27-2017 6:53 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 91 of 222 (816047)
07-28-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Vlad
07-28-2017 5:16 AM


Re: Can mutation and selection increase information?
Vlad writes:
True Darwinists tend to slip down to Lamarckism — without fail.
An accusation without evidence.
will you try and trace an evolutionary path from bit to counterrevolution? Or even further — to counterrevolutionary (or any other 20-character English noun)?
Why would we? English words have nothing to do with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Vlad, posted 07-28-2017 5:16 AM Vlad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by CRR, posted 07-28-2017 7:09 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 96 of 222 (816192)
07-31-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Vlad
07-29-2017 5:18 AM


Re: Self-learning evolution
Vlad writes:
Guys, you shouldn’t disgrace good old Richard Dawkins. Indeed, he declared a lot of inanities, and METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL seems by no means the most flagrant. In return, he was one of the first evolutionary theorists who actively promoted the fundamental idea of self-replication. And Dawkins didn’t feel shy to display the non-existence of Darwinian natural selection, in the world of sexual reproduction. You, guys, are still unable to perceive the significance of this revelation.
Anyway, there are no chances for spontaneous evolution to create, due to random mutations, more or less complex life forms. For complicated things, random creation is not an option. [John Mayfield. The Engine of Complexity: Evolution as Computation, 2013, p. 136] So sad
Then how did biological evolution manage? The off-the-wall answer is: the evolution of so-called MODULAR self-replicators — for example, see ubiquitous bacteria — is capable of self-learning (by doing). The prose of informatics and cybernetics.
Therefore, genetic changes are not so much random, and biological evolution turns out to be a purposeful expedient process. For detail see the Evolution: from Mythology to Theory book, 2017, by Anatoly Nikolaev (published by Amazon), chapter Learning by Doing and so on. Scientific knowledge is paradoxical, isn’t it?
Are you saying that none of the genetic differences between humans and chimps constitutes an increase in information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Vlad, posted 07-29-2017 5:18 AM Vlad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by CRR, posted 08-01-2017 3:37 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 101 of 222 (816236)
08-01-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by CRR
08-01-2017 3:37 AM


Re: Self-learning evolution
CRR writes:
The genetic differences between humans and chimps almost certainly constitutes a difference in information?
By what measure?
If the non-homologous genes are due to deletions from the genome of a common ancestor then it would be a loss of information.
So how do you determine which of those differences is an increase in information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by CRR, posted 08-01-2017 3:37 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 102 of 222 (816237)
08-01-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Vlad
08-01-2017 5:16 AM


Re: genetic difference
Vlad writes:
I’m saying that Taq is, first, to try and puzzle out if spontaneous evolution were able to advance, in a reasonable time space, from bit to any (any!) 20-character English noun.
I am waiting for you to point to any 20-character English noun in the genome of any species. Evolution doesn't need to produce what doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Vlad, posted 08-01-2017 5:16 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 103 of 222 (816238)
08-01-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by CRR
08-01-2017 3:32 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
CRR writes:
First, the periods of accelerated mutation aren't random in time, they occur when required to adapt to the environment.
Second, they aren't randomly distributed throughout the genome; specific areas are targeted.
As JonF mentions, those are irrelevant. If someone buys 100 lottery tickets instead of 1, that is still a random lottery drawing. If someone bets on more odd numbers than even on the Roulette table, it is still a random result with respect to the chips on the table.
So it appears the organism is searching for solutions with a constrained solutions space to adapt to a specific challenge. Perhaps in time we will discover even this isn't entirely random.
Perhaps you can present evidence that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. Otherwise, you have no reason to challenge the current conclusion that they are random with respect to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by CRR, posted 08-01-2017 3:32 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(4)
Message 106 of 222 (816252)
08-01-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
08-01-2017 11:15 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
RAZD writes:
(B) IIRC, the areas that are not within the "target areas" are still hit by mutations, but these areas also have evolved mechanism/s to protect/conserve critical functions, so you should be talking about areas that are highly conserved by evolved correction mechanisms not having as high a rate of mutations as non-conserved areas, rather than about areas "targeted" for mutations -- there are no "targets."
For those who are interested, I started a thread a while back on these types of mutational hotspots here. The thread focused on one paper by Wright et al. that described hypermutation in an upregulated gene. As it turns out, actively transcribed genes have an increased rate of mutation, probably due to their single stranded state during transcription. Non-transcribed DNA had lower rates of mutation. This would seem to create a situation where genes for critical functions would have a higher rate of mutation than non-critical functions, or even in "junk DNA". Of course, this is E. coli so eukaryotic mutation rates may be a bit different since those mutations occur in the germ line where transcription may be different than in somatic cells.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2017 11:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 111 of 222 (816285)
08-02-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Vlad
08-02-2017 5:27 AM


Re: Non-random genetic changes
Vlad writes:
Well, Taq still remains unaware of modeling (incl. imaginary experimenting) as of one of the principal methods of science.
I understand it just fine which is why I know that your model is irrelevant to how biology and evolution works.
Sheer ferity No wonder, Taq produces nothing beyond the inexhaustible torrent of blah-blah.
Guys, you arduously chew all the same banalities over and don’t see the very essential:
You do realize that you just described your own posts, right?
long ago, self-learning evolution did away with dependence on (random) mutations. Instead, biological evolution deftly handles targeted genetic changes — for example, see [James Shapiro. Evolution: a View from the 21st Century, 2011] This is the only way for evolution to create incredibly complex living systems.
The changes that James Shapiro discusses are random mutations with respect to fitness. If you would like to discuss one of his papers, I would be happy to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Vlad, posted 08-02-2017 5:27 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 112 of 222 (816286)
08-02-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by CRR
08-02-2017 3:59 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
CRR writes:
There are two types of mutations.
1. Mutations that occur randomly in time and space; where time is measured by cell divisions and space is the full length of the genome.
2. Mutations that that are not random in space and time;
You forgot a 3rd one.
3. Mutations that are random with respect to fitness.
They will occur together but type 1 will occur at each cell division and type 2 will occur only when the external trigger happens.
Both of those types are random with respect to fitness. Just because a lottery drawing occurs at a set time on a set day does not stop it from being random.
However type 2 appear to be goal directed in response to the trigger.
Poverty triggering people to buy more lottery tickets does not stop the lottery from being random. Hypermutation triggered by environmental conditions increases the random mutation rate. It is still random and not goal oriented. If it were goal oriented then mutations would only occur at specific bases that only produce beneficial changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 3:59 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 115 of 222 (816358)
08-03-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Vlad
08-03-2017 5:22 AM


Re: Mutations and fitness
Vlad writes:
Well, perhaps Taq is going to invent a quite adequate model of spontaneous evolution sometime
The models already exist, from the organismal level down to the molecular level. What specific aspects are you curious about?
Actually, Shapiro has proposed the hypothesis of natural genetic engineering (NGE) — fitness or no fitness.
NGE is random mutation with respect to fitness followed by selection. What Shapiro does is focus on beneficial mutations while ignoring the detrimental and neutral mutations that those mechanisms produce.
Moreover, there is no such appearance as individual fitness, in the world of sexual reproduction. An asexual bacterium is endowed with the property of fitness, while an individual, even being quite viable, is not, in the world of sex. Only heterosexual (conspecific) pairs are more or less fit — and for good reason. So Taq, as usual, is merely beating the air. A militant ignorance
Individuals can be individually fit, such as having different courtship displays (e.g. peacocks).
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Vlad, posted 08-03-2017 5:22 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 121 of 222 (816432)
08-04-2017 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Vlad
08-04-2017 5:22 AM


Re: Fitness and sexual reproduction
Vlad writes:
Once again, in the world of asexual reproduction, individuals — say, bacteria — are more or less fit. Yet the world of sex is just another pair of shoes: no individual per se is able to reproduce there. Regrettably, only heterosexual (conspecific) pairs are. Wily Mother Nature
The reproductive success of a bee colony is often dependent on the sterile workers who never reproduce. Group fitness and kin selection in social sexual species is also of importance. You don't have to reproduce in order to pass your genes along. You can also increase the fitness of your relatives.
Some 7-8 decades ago, the founding fathers of the so-called Modern Synthesis had no idea of system properties, system effects, etc. And so they, in good conscience, operated with the anecdotic idea of individual fitness. Let them do. Yet we live in the second decade of XXI century, and reasoning upon the individual fitness, as regards sexual reproduction, appears sheer ferity.
Then once evolutionary theorists acknowledged invalidity of the individual fitness idea, the whole Modern Synthesis construction would collapse like a rickety house of cards. So sad
The feather display for a single male peacock can influence the distribution of that peacock's genes. You are wrong.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Vlad, posted 08-04-2017 5:22 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 128 of 222 (816631)
08-08-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by CRR
08-04-2017 8:47 PM


Re: random and non-random mutations
CRR writes:
You can have a search that is both goal directed and random.
That doesn't change the fact that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by CRR, posted 08-04-2017 8:47 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