|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2686 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures | |||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Gregory Rogers writes: That's not true. Mutations in the germ line can be disadvantageous, neutral or advantageous. And mutations can be advantageous in one environment and disadvantageous in another.
1. The vast majority of mutations in evolutionary history are said to be disadvantageous. Gregory Rogers writes: Watching debates are not useful. People tend to tell porkies in oral debates, because there's not time to check the sources. One debate I watched suggested that 80 to 90 percent were so. What would be more useful would be to do research. And research doesn't mean this one said this; this one said that, at all. That's not research and the opposite of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one was funny.
Gregory Rogers writes: It seems as if this guy is really, really not too bright, while pretending to be brilliant. 'The issue of genetic mutations', hey? This time I have a query on the issue of genetic mutations... Let's take a guess and be a Prophet. Gregory doesn't know how to measure 'genetic information', yet would go on about telling everyone in the world exactly how to quantify "more'' or "less'' genetic information because he read someting about it on some religious website. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Thanks, Doc. To me it's just unbelievable that someone would read a few creationist tracts and then think that it's 'scientific'. Then repeat untruths and all that.
I'll shut up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
CRR writes: 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".
@RAZD, @Pressie, @ Dr AdequateHow is information defined, quantified, measured, and what are the units of measurement? You are suggesting... CRR writes: 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 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, 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
CRR writes: Oh, and QSS, you changing things from "genetic information" to "information" didn't go unnoticed.
=@RAZD, @Pressie, @ Dr AdequateHow is information defined, quantified, measured, and what are the units of measurement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Seeing that you appeared since your last post on this subject; just wanted to know whether you have figured out how to quantify genetic information yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ah, great. I have no way of quantifying "genetic information". You claimed that you can. So do it.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
So, again you can't tell us how to measure "genetic information".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one is funny.
CRR writes: That's the way you, yourself proposed.
That would be a naive way of thinking about it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
After all of this, CRR was still unable to provide any quantitavive analyses on how to determine whether any organism has "more" or "less" genetic information than another organism. Couldn't tell us how an organism could "gain" or " loose" genetic information. All CRR did was to claim that thumb-sucks count as "science".
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I want to bump this up again. CRR has no way of quantifiying the amount of genetic information in any organism.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
So, no quantitative result for measuring genetic information yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ah, a creationist being photoshopped into a lab she's never worked in ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ah, her PhD thesis. Ever read it? I have an electronic copy available at the organisation I work at. Do you? Let's give you a little hint. It mentions millions of years. And nothing about 6000 years.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024