Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9049 total)
48 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons (2 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,590 Year: 5,236/14,102 Month: 157/677 Week: 16/26 Day: 4/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can mutation and selection increase information?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 222 (809228)
05-17-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
05-16-2017 8:27 AM


functional information ... DNA function
It seems to be a common creationist claim that evolutionary processes either cannot produce new "functional information," or that if they can, they cannot produce enough to account for the life forms we see in the world today. Yet I've never known any creationist show that either is actually the case.

Some may also want to argue that "biological information" is ill defined, undefined, or that there's no such thing etc., all of which is fine on this thread.

Indeed, it seems mostly to be an argument from incredulity - at best: how can the human genome not have more "information" than the genome of a bacterium or a worm? Seems obvious, but the devil is in the details, and creationists typically are not strong on details.

On Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments I show that functional information must increase or that it is irrelevant to any restriction on evolution. I expect this thread to do the same.

When we look at just DNA as a measure we see sometimes it increases and sometimes it decreases, but length is not a measure of what the DNA does.

So maybe a useful parameter would be DNA function. We can measure genes and we can find cross links between genes in doing certain functions. It's not just the number of genes then, but also how they interact.

So, I propose a thread on which creationists can support either or both of those claims, and on which evolutionists can support the opposing view that novel functions (presumably requiring "new functional information") can be added to the life system, and that the known evolutionary processes should be adequate to account for the evolution of any "information" present in modern life from one or several relatively simple ancestral forms.

I look forward to many examples of mutations adding new beneficial function.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : st


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 bluegenes, posted 05-16-2017 8:27 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2017 10:11 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 34 of 222 (809582)
05-19-2017 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bluegenes
05-19-2017 4:17 AM


Wings and Walkingsticks: flip flop genetic information?
I'd like to ask CRR and any other creationists for their own views on this. Is it that mutation and selection can produce no new information at all, or is it that they just can't produce enough?

I've posted this elsewhere and thought it would make an interesting example to discuss.

See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

And some lost wings (red). And diversified.

And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.

And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

And this doesn't even address the ones where one sex (usually male) has wings and the other sex doesn't (the red includes these, so it is hard to determine from this graphic how many times the female sex gained and lost wings independent of the winged males).

So which species have more information, which have gained information and which have lost information?

I would think that those that lose wings would lose information, but that those that regain wings must then gain that information back or replace it with new information.

It also appears that this regaining wings information gain must be "copious" enough for several species to evolve.

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 33 by bluegenes, posted 05-19-2017 4:17 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 222 (811743)
06-11-2017 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JonF
06-11-2017 10:28 AM


Start with an inadequate analogy, end up with an inadequate argument.

Words don't reproduce and die, there is no selection mechanism there.

Useless to less than useless.


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 41 by JonF, posted 06-11-2017 10:28 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 06-11-2017 1:07 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 222 (811754)
06-11-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
06-11-2017 1:07 PM


Re: Words
But they do reproduce and die. Words are a good analogy and maybe more than an analogy they are actually undergoing evolution. Evolutionary methods are used to uncover language relationships.

Yes evolution is a good analogy for studying words changing over time, but it doesn't work the other way. Words can evolve outside nested hierarchies as well as inside. You see horizontal transfer from one language to another for instance.

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 43 by NosyNed, posted 06-11-2017 1:07 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 222 (815805)
07-24-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tangle
07-24-2017 3:27 PM


Re: Bump for CRR - copious quantities of genetic information
Out of all the definitions of evolution you've been given show me any that are contradictory.

Show me any that don't mean essentially the same thing.

All I've seen are definitions of evolution that are like synonyms of words -- saying the same thing a slightly different way. The consilience between them providing a more complete picture than any one definition.

Now show me where anyone that argues for evolution here disagrees on anything significant.

In science ... in politics not so difficult.


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 64 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2017 3:27 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 127 of 222 (816509)
08-05-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by JonF
08-05-2017 8:24 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
\[b\]random*

oopsie

This is a hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence at this time to accept it, but there is even less evidence to reject it.

What evidence have you studied to conclude that there is less evidence to reject it than for it?

There are two aspects to the question as I see it:

  1. is the ratio of beneficial* mutations to non-beneficial mutations greater under stress?

  2. is the ratio of beneficial* mutations per unit of time greater under stress?

I believe (my opinion) the answers are no and yes. The first ratio can even be lower and still have a greater second ratio.

Further I believe (my opinion) this is an evolved mechanism, as organisms that do this will be selected over those that don't, and that it is a "burn the bridges," do-or-die, last ditch effort at survival.

Enjoy

* with regard to "fitness" ... ie survival

Edited by RAZD, : *

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 125 by JonF, posted 08-05-2017 8:24 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by CRR, posted 08-10-2017 2:17 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 131 of 222 (816731)
08-10-2017 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by CRR
08-10-2017 2:17 AM


Re: random and non-random mutations
Further I believe (my opinion) this is an evolved mechanism, as organisms that do this will be selected over those that don't, and that it is a "burn the bridges," do-or-die, last ditch effort at survival.

Which would I think make it a goal directed random search.

Only if the 'goal' is to mutate, and that doesn't change the "with respect to fitness" issue

RAZD writes:

There are two aspects to the question as I see it:

  1. is the ratio of beneficial* mutations to non-beneficial mutations greater under stress?

  2. is the ratio of beneficial* mutations per unit of time greater under stress?

I believe (my opinion) the answers are no and yes. The first ratio can even be lower and still have a greater second ratio.

I believe (my opinion) the answers are maybe and yes.

If the rate of unchecked mutations doubles and the proportion of beneficial with respect to fitness mutations falls to 51% you still come out ahead, at the cost of a lot of failure and lost energy in reproduction. This is how turning on hypermutation would be a beneficial trait that gets selected, without it being goal oriented.

If it were goal oriented then why isn't it turned on permanently?

If it's an evolved stress response mechanism, then it only occurs during stress.

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 129 by CRR, posted 08-10-2017 2:17 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 183 of 222 (818328)
08-27-2017 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Porkncheese
08-27-2017 6:57 AM


Re: Cells
Welcome to the fray Porkncheese

The theory says that all life evolved from 1 cell.

Which theory would that be?

Now we have observed that cells can multiply but the theory collapses because a cell can only multiply itself.

Which theory is that again?

For example a whales liver cell can only produce more whale liver cells.

Or cancer cells.

It most definitely has not been observed to spawn completely new and different cells.

Why would a liver cell "spawn completely new and different cells?"

As for mutations that only occurs when information is missing from the DNA. So a mutation cannot introduce new information.

What is information, how do you measure it? How do you now when it is missing?

Biologists cannot call their practice a science. ...

Curiously, you are not in a position to make this claim.

... Physics and chemistry is science. ...

Well that make biology a science then.

Biology the way it operates on evolution and the big bang is a philosophy.

Twice wrong in one sentence.

Simply put unless a cell is observed multiplying into new cells then the theory collapses. ...

Then it hasn't collapsed, because that has been observed, but still waiting to know what theory you are talking about.

... The theory is also made redundant unless several fossils of an evolutionary man in transition can be found.

Then, once again, the theory hasn't collapsed, because they have been found. Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

As for creationists don't get too excited because this does not automatically mean that your theory is correct either

What theory is the creationist theory? I didn't know they had one.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


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 181 by Porkncheese, posted 08-27-2017 6:57 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 195 of 222 (818539)
08-30-2017 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Tangle
08-30-2017 1:59 AM


multicellular organism cell complexity
btw, is a single-celled life form - ie an organism capable of independent life, feeding, growing and reproducing independently of other cells, more or less complex than, say, a stem cell?

or -- is a single cell organism more or less complex than a skin cell.

Multicellular organism cells depend on other cells to deliver needed materials that a single cell organism is capable of getting on it's own.

Does that dependency decrease or increase the complexity of the multicellular organism cell?

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 194 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2017 1:59 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021