|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can mutation and selection increase information? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Why would we? English words have nothing to do with evolution.
Unless you're Richard Dawkins who thinks it is like a weasel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Not even then. Remember, that was just an experiment comparing two different methods of selection. Any arbitrary sequence of any set of symbols would have served just as well in that experiment. A sequence of English words using Roman letters was just convenient for him and poetic as well. My MONKEY version of the experiement doesn't even use English words, just the letters in an arbitrary sequence (by default the alphabet in alphabetical order), though you could choose to have it use any string you want, even a sequence of words in any language you want (just don't expect support for special characters or diacritics).
Though there's something in Vlad's messages that looks suspicious. He keeps going on and on about "spontaneous evolution". I have absolutely no idea what he means by that, except that it appears to not use selection. Maybe it's meant to be creationism's bogus probability model that uses single-step selection (as discussed on my MONKEY pages) to make entire complex structures just fall all together in a single event by pure chance. Again, the probabilities of the two selection methods are discussed and analyzed mathematically on my MONKEY Probabilities page. Of course, if Vlad means something completely different, then he needs to explain what "spontaneous evolution" is supposed to be. ABE:The primary problem of trying to evolve actual language text or functional machine code (or even source code) is that those systems are not conducive to evolving because they are too brittle, they break too easily. Amino acid sequences for proteins do not suffer from that brittleness problem. Thomas Ray discussed this brittleness problem in his documentation for his TIERRA simulation -- TIERRA Home Page. Gotta leave right now. Running late for Carolina Shag class, followed by manning the door at a dance. Edited by dwise1, : ABE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vlad Junior Member (Idle past 2454 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Overall RD has been a Godsend to Darwinian Evolution Skeptics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Ah, the good ol' equivocation on "random".
There are 2 ways in which this isn't random. Genetic changes can respond to environmental events. They are still random with respect to fitness.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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Are you saying that none of the genetic differences between humans and chimps constitutes an increase in information?
The genetic differences between humans and chimps almost certainly constitutes a difference in information?If the non-homologous genes are due to deletions from the genome of a common ancestor then it would be a loss of information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vlad Junior Member (Idle past 2454 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
It should be commented that, being an adamant Darwinist, Richard Dawkins has repeatedly caused heavy damage to the only true evolutionary doctrine. Of course, he has altogether unintentionally...
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. And then he/she would be able to reason upon the significance of genetic difference between humans and chimps, etc. You know, from simple to complex. Otherwise the so-called theory adds up to mere blah-blah. A shame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Ah, the good ol' equivocation on "random". Genetic changes can respond to environmental events. They are still random with respect to fitness. There are 2 ways in which this isn't random.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. 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. When we speak of random mutations we always mean random with respect to fitness. So your two ways in which this isn't random are true but irrelevant. It does appear that this sort of phenomenon evolved as a response to stress. But it does not mean that the organism is searching to adapt to a specific challenge, because the effect of the mutations is not specific to the challenge. That is, random with respect to fitness. Unlike creationists, scientists are always poking and prodding and testing. When and if someone discovers the process isn't exactly random with respect to fitness you will have an argument. But not now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
To add to what JonF said
Second, they aren't randomly distributed throughout the genome; specific areas are targeted. (A) those "targeted areas" are huuuge, and the mutation location within those areas is completely random, and (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." Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ah, the good ol' equivocation on "random".
There are 2 ways in which this isn't random. Genetic changes can respond to environmental events. They are still random with respect to fitness.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. At the genotypic level, they don't even have to be random in that they're not necessarily stochastic - but that still doesn't mean that they aren't random from the perspective at the phynotipic level.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024