Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 8:15 PM
95 online now:
jar, JonF, kjsimons, Rrhain (4 members, 91 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,287 Year: 28,893/21,208 Month: 959/1,847 Week: 334/475 Day: 99/82 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Can mutation and selection increase information?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(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 yet responded

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

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 92 of 222 (816071)
07-28-2017 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
07-28-2017 10:43 AM


Re: Can mutation and selection increase information?
Why would we? English words have nothing to do with evolution.

Unless you're Richard Dawkins who thinks it is like a weasel.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 07-28-2017 10:43 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by dwise1, posted 07-28-2017 8:53 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 93 of 222 (816076)
07-28-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by CRR
07-28-2017 7:09 PM


Re: Can mutation and selection increase information?
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:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by CRR, posted 07-28-2017 7:09 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 94 of 222 (816091)
07-29-2017 5:18 AM


Self-learning evolution
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?
Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by CRR, posted 07-30-2017 2:53 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 07-31-2017 10:51 AM Vlad has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 95 of 222 (816137)
07-30-2017 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Vlad
07-29-2017 5:18 AM


Re: RD
Overall RD has been a Godsend to Darwinian Evolution Skeptics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Vlad, posted 07-29-2017 5:18 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

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

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 97 of 222 (816224)
08-01-2017 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by JonF
07-27-2017 8:53 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 07-27-2017 8:53 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 08-01-2017 9:22 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 08-01-2017 10:47 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2017 11:15 AM CRR has responded
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2017 12:39 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 98 of 222 (816225)
08-01-2017 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taq
07-31-2017 10:51 AM


Re: Self-learning evolution
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 07-31-2017 10:51 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 08-01-2017 10:42 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 99 of 222 (816226)
08-01-2017 5:16 AM


genetic difference
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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 08-01-2017 10:44 AM Vlad has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 100 of 222 (816233)
08-01-2017 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by CRR
08-01-2017 3:32 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
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.


Cool! You respond to my pointing out your equivocation with two more equivocations.

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.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19309
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 104 of 222 (816241)
08-01-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by CRR
08-01-2017 3:32 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
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."

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 97 by CRR, posted 08-01-2017 3:32 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 08-01-2017 12:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 108 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 3:59 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 105 of 222 (816251)
08-01-2017 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by CRR
08-01-2017 3:32 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
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.

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.


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

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017