Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 458 (510339)
05-30-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by slevesque
05-30-2009 4:29 AM


I'm fairly sure I didn't say "fu" anywhere ... which shows great restraint on my part (joke).
If you now get 51 fixations per generation, does that mean that you now understand what's going on? If not, where does "fu" come into it? Can you quote?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2009 4:29 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 458 (510340)
05-30-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by slevesque
05-30-2009 4:36 AM


I thought you were asking why muller's ratchet didn't provoke the extinction of bacterias ?
I'm asking why bacteria don't go extinct as a result of these mysterious, impossible mutations which cause extinction but are invisible to natural selection, when they are more vulnerable to the accumulation of deleterious mutations and breed much faster. If we don't observe it in them, why should it affect anything else?
I think it is gonna be very difficult to discuss this with your aggressive behavior ...
You mean, I point out where you're wrong, ask you for evidence, that sort of thing?
... coupled with the fact that you haven't read the book.
Feel free to reproduce his arguments.
Incidentally, have you read Kimura?
Dr. Sanford doesn't simply apply Muller's ratchet on sexual species, he ellaborates the concept of mutation accumulations to sexual species. This is very different.
It is. Muller's rachet specifically applies to asexual organisms; the idea was put forward as one reason why sex is biologically advantageous. Calling some putative process that affects sexually reproducing organisms by the name "Muller's rachet" is sheer obfuscation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2009 4:36 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 3:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 458 (510424)
05-31-2009 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
05-31-2009 3:15 AM


We don't observe it in them because the no-selection zone is quasi inexistant for them, and so even nearly-neutral mutations can be detected by natural selection.
Saying this is no substitute for evidence.
You have to remember two things: Muller developped his idea of ratchet in asexual species, but he was aware that the same could happen in sexual species.
Quotes, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 3:15 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 6:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 458 (510425)
05-31-2009 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by slevesque
05-31-2009 3:55 AM


Mitochodrial DNA is an asexual system, and so subject to Muller's ratchet. However, Loewe makes it abundantly clear that nuclear DNA (which is not asexual) can also be subject to mutation accumulation.
Where does he make it "abundantly clear" that mutations in nuclear DNA, invisible to natural selection, can accumulate to cause extinction?
From a personnal experience, the region where I live, saguenay-lac-saint-jeanthat are unique to the region. These are not near-neutral by any means, because each of them are very serious . But because they are recessive (as are most mutations I believe) they have been accumulating in the region at an alarming rate. Of course none have become fixed in the population yet ...
The reason that they are unique to the region is because of the founder effect, and the reason that they will never become fixed is heterozygote equilibrium.
Another example I can think of is the recent trend to ban marriage between cousins in Europe, which is becoming a hot topic I think over there.
I've never heard of such a movement.
It seems that similar mutations are becoming more and more frequent, to the point that even cousins inter-marriage are having an increasing probability of birth defects.
Evidence?
This is in stark contrast to the culture of even 200 years ago, where marrying a cousin was common but was not known as a source of child defects. If it is now seen as a problem, it is because mutations have become more widespread in the population.
No, it's because now people know about it.
Mutations which cause birth defects are, in any case, not invisible to natural selection and so have nothing to do with Sanford's fantasies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 3:55 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 7:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 458 (510426)
05-31-2009 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by slevesque
05-31-2009 2:52 AM


I was talking about that part, with the u
Ah, I see. That's a mu (μ) not a u.
That represents the probability of any particular single nucleotide substitution occurring.
The 51 mutations fixed per generation, is that threw genetic drift ?
Yes.
Edited by Admin, : Fix special character so it doesn't become a smiley.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 2:52 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 458 (510501)
05-31-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by slevesque
05-31-2009 6:50 AM


the evidence is that bacteria species do not go extinct because of Muller's ratchet
That would be my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 6:50 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 458 (510502)
05-31-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by slevesque
05-31-2009 7:01 AM


"The resulting genomic decay paradox complements a similar threat from extinction due to mutation accumulation in nuclear DNA "
Its is as clear as you can get
Ah, I see.
Nonetheless, he seems convinced that this does not actually happen.
People would have known of birth defects caused by sister-brother marriage ...
Would they?
It's not like it happens that often. What with being illegal, and all that.
Of course, if we are talking about a dominant gene, then it cannot accumulate. But if the birth defect comes fro ma recessive gene, then it can accumulate, and as it accumulates, it becomes more frequent that two individuals have the gene and give birth to sick children.
Up to heterozygote equilibrium.
It isn't a movement (yet, I suppose) but it is being talked, especially in England.
I'm English, I've never heard of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by slevesque, posted 05-31-2009 7:01 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 06-01-2009 6:19 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 173 of 458 (520815)
08-24-2009 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by LucyTheApe
08-15-2009 5:55 AM


Re: What is information?
A snippet of information, show me how you can mutate this code and introduce new information, piecewise!
if you are genuinely ignorant of the existence of genetic programming, I strongly suggest that you look it up.
No? Why is it that evolution doesn't comply with the natural laws but instead has a set of laws all of its own.
It doesn't. You are raving. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
I'm sure everyone who has studied science has been introduced to the laws. Mentioning ^&*(&%% of thermodynamics on a evolutionism site is like turning the light on cockroaches; they scatter.
What a curious lie.
The creationist nonsense about thermodynamics would rank high in anyone's list of Huge Creationist Fails. We eat it for breakfast.
If you want to be wrong about thermodynamics, start a new thread, and I (who, unlike you, have studied thermodynamics) will mock you in the way that you deserve.
Or perhaps you will run from this offer like a cockroach from the light.
Its not an opinion, were talking exact science.
Reciting creationist lies is not "talking exact science". It's kinda the complete opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-15-2009 5:55 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 189 of 458 (520917)
08-25-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by traderdrew
08-24-2009 4:05 PM


Re: What is information?
I agree. If you could prove that it can only be done (not, can it be done?) with Darwinian processes and not (NGE) natural genetic engineering, then it would shut me up.
That ol' burden of proof is getting a bit heavy for you, isn't it?
Show me that only my dog could have been responsible for the disappearance of all the salami from the fridge while I was out the other day, and that magic fairies couldn't have been involved.
And none of your materialist dogma about how there's no evidence that magic fairies exist, or the usual atheistic prating about so-called "Occam's Razor". Daminit, it you're going to introduce parsimony into the debate, then I could hardly believe in magic fairies at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by traderdrew, posted 08-24-2009 4:05 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by traderdrew, posted 08-25-2009 10:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 206 of 458 (521093)
08-25-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:53 PM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
exactly, i'm not saying that natural selection didn't occur, but rather because of the controversial nature of the way the research was carried out I think it is best to stick to examples where the research isn't so controversial.
But of course creationists can manufacture a "controversy" about any subject by getting up on their little soapboxes and talking rubbish about it. If we are not going to discuss anything which is "controversial" in this sense, then what can we discuss that is remotely relevant to evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:53 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2009 1:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 220 of 458 (521216)
08-26-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Arphy
08-26-2009 6:02 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
All that I was saying was that as many of you have pointed out already, some aspects of the research were dodgy. Can we agree on that.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Arphy, posted 08-26-2009 6:02 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 222 of 458 (521218)
08-26-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by traderdrew
08-26-2009 1:12 PM


Re: What is information?
I don't understand that [...] I may never understand ...
Ah, yes, creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by traderdrew, posted 08-26-2009 1:12 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 229 of 458 (521407)
08-27-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by traderdrew
08-27-2009 11:28 AM


I guess you do understand it.
And as usual you are wrong.
He did not claim to understand it. What he said was that not understanding it is not a basis for the Great Big Fundie Fallacy: "I don't understand this perfectly. Therefore, no-one else in the world understands it perfectly or ever will. Therefore, I do understand it perfectly --- God did it by magic".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 11:28 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 12:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 236 of 458 (521586)
08-28-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by LucyTheApe
08-28-2009 4:59 AM


Re: What is information?
It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance.
You know I mentioned the existence of genetic programming? Let me mention it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 4:59 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 239 of 458 (521598)
08-28-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by traderdrew
08-27-2009 12:23 PM


I don't think there is anything wrong with "God did it" and I will tell you why. There will always be skeptics of the "God did it" idea. This is what science is for. Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion.
How much ignorance of nature do we need for it to magically turn into knowledge of God?
After all, our species spent millennia not knowing, for example, what lightning was, and yet all that ignorance did not, as it turned out, add up to one scrap of knowledge about the thunder-god Thor and his magic hammer.
Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis is apparently more than just a hypothesis. Anyone who thinks the sequences in DNA are nothing more than Shannon information fails to explain how the precise functions and coherence within the cell formed without it.
That paragraph makes less sense then you hoped when you wrote it.
Also, labeling me as a creationist is off the topic and an argument more from philosophy.
And, also, not something I actually did.
The ID paradigm is distinct from creationism. It is sort of a hybrid between science and creationism but more toward science. It is a particular way of thinking and once you start to use the paradigm, the differences become obvious. See link below which helps discern the differences.
The similarities are rather more striking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 12:23 PM traderdrew 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