Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 6:46 AM
385 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,847 Year: 13,453/21,208 Month: 2,935/3,605 Week: 277/933 Day: 19/154 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures
Taq
Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(4)
Message 31 of 93 (794827)
11-28-2016 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
11-28-2016 3:39 PM


Re: Regarding the frequency of disadvantageous mutations
Modulous writes:

How many mutations are beneficial is determined by how 'fit' the population is to its environment. The more specially adapted it is, the easier it is for small perturbations to disrupt the adaptation. An example: Humans are built under the assumption that we'll have four limbs. It is possible to live with fewer, but even with communal assistance, the survival/birth rate is likely inhibited in the very long term. Trying to add more limbs is even worse. Our physiology is 'fine tuned' by evolution {or God if you insist} so any mutation that results in extra limbs is likely to cause problems elsewhere even if they are improbably useful limbs. Blood flow management, the nervous system, balance and so on are all likely to be impaired by the new structures.

Historical constraints are an interesting part of evolution. One of the features of evolution is that it tinkers with what is already there. What you don't see in a lineage of species is evolution stripping morphology down to the basics and then rebuilding it.

A good analogy is a building. When you start, it is relatively easy to change the foundation of the building to whatever you want. However, once you start building on top of the foundation you can't change the foundation anymore. Morphology is a lot like that. Things like 4 limbs formed the foundation of the tetrapod body plan. Even to this day we still have the same bone structures as the transitional tetrapods, such as Tiktaalik. For example, the forelimb of tetrapods, starting from the shoulder, have one bone, two bones, bunch of little bones, and phalanges. Everything from alligators, bats, and dolphins have this arrangement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2016 3:39 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 227
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 32 of 93 (797479)
01-22-2017 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
11-16-2016 5:33 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 11-16-2016 5:33 AM Gregory Rogers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2017 4:10 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2017 10:54 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2017 12:31 PM CRR has responded
 Message 36 by Pressie, posted 01-25-2017 5:55 AM CRR has responded
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 01-26-2017 11:09 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2017 3:43 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15927
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 33 of 93 (797480)
01-22-2017 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by CRR
01-22-2017 3:08 AM


However even the very few beneficial mutations are usually information losing in some way.

How are you quantifying information?

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.

An assertion which is literally meaningless unless you tell us how you're quantifying 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're not going to show your working?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CRR, posted 01-22-2017 3:08 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18455
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 34 of 93 (797493)
01-22-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by CRR
01-22-2017 3:08 AM


However even the very few beneficial mutations are usually information losing in some way. ...

Please define how "information" in this context is defined and then show us how it is quantified and measured.

You must have this already if you are claiming it is being lost, or you are making stuff up.

Next, are you sure "information" is relevant to whether or not evolution occurs? See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, another post of mine from 2004:

quote:

2. Information Loss


Another argument common to creationism and IDology is that mutations only result in the loss of "information", and that without a mechanism to gain "information" new systems, functions or features cannot evolve.

Let's review the logic of this argument:

  • (P1) mutations cannot cause an increase in "information."
  • (P2) an increase in "information" is necessary for new mechanisms or functions to evolve.
  • (C1) Therefore new mechanisms or functions cannot evolve.

Leaving aside the fact that "information" is not defined in any way to measure whether or not there is an increase or a decrease in any evolved changes in species over time, we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such mechanism or function has evolved that would require such an increase. In other words, if we can show that either (P1) or (P2) must be invalid then we have shown that the conclusion is invalid.

Now let's look at Barry Hall's experiments again in light of this concept:

An existing "irreducibly complex" system is intentionally disrupted and ceases to function.

According to the equation of new information with the evolution of new functions or mechanisms by precept (2), the intentional loss of a function or mechanism must then also involve the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for that function or mechanism:

quote:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose.

Thus the deletion of the beta-galactosidase gene MUST have involved the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for the function or mechanism of that gene.

Next what we see is that a DIFFERENT "IC" system evolves to replace the original -- the original "IC" system is not repaired or recovered, but a new and different "IC" system evolved.

Ergo new "information" MUST have evolved that was not in the original organism, the "information" for that organism MUST have been increased. Again, this is the principle of falsification used by science - it invalidates either precept (P1) or precept (P2), and therefore invalidates ALL conclusions based on their combination.

We started with a system with some quantity of "information" that -- according to precept (2) -- must have been lost to render it dysfunctional, and then a replacement system evolved.

Either "information" was added (invalidates precept (P1)) OR added "information" was not necessary for the evolution of a feature, function or system (invalidates precept (P2)).

Thus either precept (P1) OR precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted and ALL conclusions based on their combination are invalidate. Q.E.D.


If you are wondering why I keep referring you to 13 year old posts of mine, it is because that is when I made these arguments and they have not been refuted since.

You are welcome to try, but you should know what you are up against.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CRR, posted 01-22-2017 3:08 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 35 of 93 (797607)
01-24-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by CRR
01-22-2017 3:08 AM


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.

I don't think those stats are correct for what you're trying to say. There's chemistry involved, so it's not going to be the same as like the odds of a purely-physical event happening, like coin flips or something. Like if there were electromagnetic forces involved in the coin flip, it might not be purely random anymore; the chemistry catalyzes certain reactions and not others, plus, the "space of all proteins" would include ones that aren't even realistic.

But to go with the coin flip analogy, you're saying something like: 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CRR, posted 01-22-2017 3:08 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 6:47 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 36 of 93 (797650)
01-25-2017 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by CRR
01-22-2017 3:08 AM


However even the very few beneficial mutations are usually information losing in some way.
Really? How do you measure genetic information? Please provide the units of measurement. Without units of measurement there's no way of telling whether information is lost or gained.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CRR, posted 01-22-2017 3:08 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 01-27-2017 3:23 AM Pressie has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13017
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 37 of 93 (797753)
01-26-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by CRR
01-22-2017 3:08 AM


CRR writes:

However even the very few beneficial mutations are usually information losing in some way.


The idea of "information losing" is pretty silly. You don't get useful information without picking and choosing from the available data.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CRR, posted 01-22-2017 3:08 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 227
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 38 of 93 (797776)
01-27-2017 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Pressie
01-25-2017 5:55 AM


@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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Pressie, posted 01-25-2017 5:55 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Pressie, posted 01-27-2017 5:44 AM CRR has responded
 Message 41 by Pressie, posted 01-27-2017 6:18 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2017 9:34 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2017 11:12 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4632
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 39 of 93 (797778)
01-27-2017 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by CRR
01-22-2017 3:08 AM


CRR writes:

However even the very few beneficial mutations are usually information losing in some way.

Just out of interest really, do you think that a bi-plane (two winged aircraft) contains more 'information' than the more evolved mono wing? If so, has this improvement in cost, safety, speed and manoeuvrability been at the cost of lost information?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CRR, posted 01-22-2017 3:08 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 40 of 93 (797779)
01-27-2017 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by CRR
01-27-2017 3:23 AM


CRR writes:

@RAZD, @Pressie, @ Dr Adequate
How is information defined, quantified, measured, and what are the units of measurement?
You are suggesting...

What a long, long way of acknowledging that you don't have the foggiest of what you're talking about when talking about "more or less genetic information".

CRR writes:

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, let's get it clear. You measure 'genetic information' as the number of base pairs in the genome together with the number of genes? Is that how you do it?

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"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 01-27-2017 3:23 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 7:07 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 93 (797781)
01-27-2017 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by CRR
01-27-2017 3:23 AM


CRR writes:

=@RAZD, @Pressie, @ Dr Adequate
How is information defined, quantified, measured, and what are the units of measurement?

Oh, and QSS, you changing things from "genetic information" to "information" didn't go unnoticed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 01-27-2017 3:23 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3535
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 42 of 93 (797786)
01-27-2017 8:15 AM


Onion genomes are five times the size of the human genome. http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/04/onion-test/

Amoeba dubia has a genome 190 times the size of the human genome.

Genome size is not a measure of information.


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18455
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 43 of 93 (797790)
01-27-2017 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by CRR
01-27-2017 3:23 AM


now it's "specified" information - still not quantified
You are suggesting that without these data information can't be said to be gained or lost.

What we are saying is that if it cannot be quantified you cannot state with authority that it is always lost through evolution.

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?

So you're saying that "information" in your view is subjective, one person thinks "A" is more beautiful while another person thinks "B" is more beautiful? Are you saying that information is in the eye of the beholder?

If so, then loss of information through mutation is your subjective opinion, not mine, not fact.

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.)

Are you saying that the information in organisms is printed on pages inside the organism?

Or are you conflating one definition of information with another -- the logical fallacy of equivocation?

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.)

So you agree that Shannon information shows a method that quantifies information but that this does not apply to organisms and evolution. Fascinating. At least you know what a metric is that can be used to measure something.

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.

And now we get to one of the latest IDolgist pet phrases designed to appear meaningful while signifying nothing of the sort.

I refer you to the argument in Message 34 and I will now insert the word "specified" into the argument to demonstrate that it is meaningless as well:

Next, are you sure "specified information" is relevant to whether or not evolution occurs? See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, another post of mine from 2004:

quote:

2. Specified Information Loss


Another argument common to creationism and IDology is that mutations only result in the loss of "specified information", and that without a mechanism to gain "specified information" new systems, functions or features cannot evolve.

Let's review the logic of this argument:

  • (P1) mutations cannot cause an increase in "specified information."
  • (P2) an increase in "specified information" is necessary for new mechanisms or functions to evolve.
  • (C1) Therefore new mechanisms or functions cannot evolve.

Leaving aside the fact that "specified information" is (still) not defined in any way to measure whether or not there is an increase or a decrease in any evolved changes in species over time, we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such mechanism or function has evolved that would require such an increase. In other words, if we can show that either (P1) or (P2) must be invalid then we have shown that the conclusion is invalid.

Now let's look at Barry Hall's experiments again in light of this concept:

An existing "irreducibly complex" system is intentionally disrupted and ceases to function.

According to the equation of new specified information with the evolution of new functions or mechanisms by precept (2), the intentional loss of a function or mechanism must then also involve the loss of AT LEAST SOME specified information for that function or mechanism:

quote:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose.

Thus the deletion of the beta-galactosidase gene MUST have involved the loss of AT LEAST SOME specified information for the function or mechanism of that gene.

Next what we see is that a DIFFERENT "IC" system evolves to replace the original -- the original "IC" system is not repaired or recovered, but a new and different "IC" system evolved.

Ergo new "specified information" MUST have evolved that was not in the original organism, the "specified information" for that organism MUST have been increased. Again, this is the principle of falsification used by science - it invalidates either precept (P1) or precept (P2), and therefore invalidates ALL conclusions based on their combination.

We started with a system with some unknown quantity of "specified information" that -- according to precept (2) -- must have been lost to render it dysfunctional, and then a replacement system evolved.

Either "specified information" was added (invalidates precept (P1)) OR added "specified information" was not necessary for the evolution of a feature, function or system (invalidates precept (P2)).

Thus either precept (P1) OR precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted and ALL conclusions based on their combination are invalidate. Q.E.D.


If you are wondering why I keep referring you to 13 year old posts of mine, it is because that is when I made these arguments and they have not been refuted since.

You are welcome to try, but you should know what you are up against.

Curiously I believe that the concept of "specified information" was devised since 2004 to attempt to get around the fact that "information" was not quantified. This is typical of creationist and IDologist dodge, moving the goalposts (deflection) to avoid admitting they are wrong and do not have a quantifiable metric that can actually measure the amount of information before and after evolution has occurred.

As you can plainly see, however, the concept of specified information is just as irrelevant to evolution as was the concept of information as it was previously used.

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.

Why? As noted by others there are many organisms with much longer DNA, involving many more base pairs, especially single cell organisms -- do they have more "specified" information? That raises a LOT of doubt to my mind about what you really mean by information, and that without such meaning, comparing one organism to another on this basis is meaningless.

ABE: AND, of course, if you DO insist on genome size being a measure of the information about the organism, it is a simple matter to show that DNA insert mutations add to the genome. /ABE

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.

And you can say it till you are blue in the face, and that won't alter the fact that you are wrong because your use of information is meaningless to evolution.

You're just making it up.

... microbes → man ...

Let me correct that for you:

... first microbes → all other life on earth since the first microbes, including but not limited to all the other microbes ...

All done without information being relevant.

... Of course devolution; man → microbes; will work with loss of genetic information.” ...

Are you saying that all (any?) current microbes (or any other types of organisms) have evolved from humans? Fascinating.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 01-27-2017 3:23 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2017 10:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5780
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 44 of 93 (797791)
01-27-2017 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
01-27-2017 9:34 AM


Re: now it's "specified" information - still not quantified
This is typical of creationist and IDologist dodge...

The whole idea of information loss is a necessary part of creationist dogma. This stems from belief in "The Fall" and sin since the Garden of Eden, which represented a state of perfection.

All the efforts we see related to information loss are simply attempts to make reality conform to creationist belief. Reality is quite stubborn though, and doesn't change in spite of what one group or another happens to believe.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2017 9:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15927
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 45 of 93 (797798)
01-27-2017 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by CRR
01-27-2017 3:23 AM


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?

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 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, 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 01-27-2017 3:23 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017