|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: 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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: 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, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024