Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 3 of 93 (794457)
11-16-2016 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
11-16-2016 5:33 AM


4. Furthermore, as the evolution-mutation process wore on, year after year, DNA learned from its mistakes, and so made fewer mistakes than it did in the earlier stages of the evolution of life. Thus we would expect to find a lower rate of failed mutations now and in recent evolutionary history.
There is some evidence that the rate of mutation increases during times of stress to the individual organisms, so this may act as a regulator on the amount of change that occurs.
I am not going to query the above arguments at this stage, as I suspect they’ve been done to death (although if anyone on either side wishes to add to the above set of points, feel free).
Okay, I'll take that as background info for the main question:
... if a great many mutations fail (whatever the percentage of disadvantageous mutations, it is still, I presume, rather high, or at least it was at the beginning of evolutionary history), then would we not expect to find a high degree of examples of these failures in the fossil and skeletal records?
Let's stop for a minute and think what any fossil represents: a dead individual. We can tell sometimes that they are juvenile -- ie did not live long enough to breed, but can we tell that it was due to genetic mutations? That would be very difficult to say.
Simply, then, what is the percentage of fossils and skeletal remains unearthed so far where clear negative, that is, disadvantageous, mutations, are in evidence?
Probably near zero, not because they didn't happen so much as because this would be very difficult to ascertain.
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 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 11-16-2016 5:33 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(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 replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2017 10:06 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 93 (798303)
02-01-2017 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by CRR
02-01-2017 7:07 AM


That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating.
Curiously, I think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes. I think that the concept of "information" is meaningless or superfluous, because wherever IDologists try to use it the result is meaningless or it increases via evolutionary changes, and that evolution proceeds without need to refer to it.
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 50 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 7:07 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 11:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 93 (798426)
02-02-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by CRR
02-01-2017 11:13 PM


I too think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes, because the human DNA contains the information to form specific tissues, organs, and the layout of the human body, all missing from the E. coli DNA.
We can measure and test DNA, we can parse to see what sections are used for which purposes. It is quantifiable, and the activity of discrete sections can be isolated and monitored, modified and observed to see the changes to the individual.
However I don't think that genetic information is directly proportional to size of the genome, just as I don't think the information contained in a book is directly proportional to the weight or word count.
Indeed, you could argue that shorter DNA is more efficient at producing the development\phenotype of the individual. There is certainly a synergy of parts interacting in more complex organisms.
Until "information" can be quantified it can not be tested, it cannot be isolated, it cannot be measured, and that is the simple crux of why it is not a usable term: you are left with a purely subjective assessment, just like the purely subjective assessment of beauty.
It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins.
Knowledge build on knowledge known, as concepts are invalidated and replaced with new ones. Knowing what is not correct is a better approximation of reality than not knowing it.
Enjoy
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 54 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 11:13 PM CRR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 93 (801393)
03-05-2017 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by CRR
03-05-2017 4:56 PM


Put a frog in a blender and blend well. All the chemicals are there so the chemical reactions should continue if it's just chemicals doing chemistry. ...
They do. It just doesn't look like a frog anymore, because those structures have been disrupted.
Mostly you will have the bacteria continue to thrive and the tissue remnants will be consumed by rot.
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 67 by CRR, posted 03-05-2017 4:56 PM CRR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 93 (801448)
03-06-2017 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2017 10:28 AM


Heads and tails are 2 out of a nearly infinite number of places that a coin flip can land, if you are included all the places along the edge. So, using that in your calculation of the odds of it landing on heads or tails will get you an almost impossible chance of it.
To say nothing of all the possibilities of landing on a surface that is not flat ... say at a 45° angle ... where do you arbitrarily draw the line?
And like chemical reactions some positions have more likelihood than others.
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 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2017 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but 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