molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]

quote:

---

If the cheetah lost a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has LESS genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?

---

So then the opposite would necessarily be a gain in genetic information. Correct? If the cheetah gained a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has MORE genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?For that matter, any species that gains one useful allele by your definition has increased information in the gene pool.Gosh, that was easy.FK

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Quetzal,

​

Fred may not have defined "information", but he HAS defined "new information" as it pertains to the genome.

​

quote:

---

new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.

---

​

Mark

---

He also said this:

quote:

---

If the cheetah lost a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has LESS genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?

---

Therefore, if loss of alleles is loss of information, then the opposite is of course true. That really wasn't so hard to falsify his information argument, unless he disputes that new alleles have been produced.FK

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

For that matter, any species that gains one useful allele by your definition has increased information in the gene pool.

---

​

By the definition I have submitted here for debate, yes! Do you have an example of a randomly produced allele that is beneficial to the population as a whole? In other words, do you have an example where the mutated population is clearly more viable than the wild-type population? I’ve seen one questionable example. Maybe you’ll stumble onto that paper and post it here. There was one admission in that paper that questions their claim. Subsequent mutated type generations produced smaller offspring. Their case was very weak (if requested I’ll look for the paper). Perhaps you may have a better example?

---

I believe this tactic is called moving the goal posts. In your original example, you didn’t say anything about benefiting the population as a whole. How exactly is an allele to do that, other than by adding to the genetic diversity as in the case of the cheetah? You have also added the criteria that the mutated population must be more viable than the wild-type population. Yet, with respect to the cheetah, you said

quote:

---

If the cheetah lost a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has LESS genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?

---

Now your story is changing such that the allele has to benefit the population as a whole. Was that the case with the lost cheetah alleles? Since it is patently obvious that loss of a useful allele is a loss of information, it is patently obvious that gaining a useful allele is a gain in information. Remember, we are not talking about loss of an entire gene to qualify as a loss, so we don’t require production of an entirely new gene to qualify as a gain (based on your criteria, of course).Concerning examples, based on your original criteria any number of new alleles would qualify. Surely you are aware that many human genes have many different alleles? These alleles are of course useful. Based on your cheetah definition, an increase in the number of alleles for human genes alone amounts to an increase in information. You are also certainly aware of any number of examples from other species. Therefore, a gain in information, based on your criteria, has been shown. Unless you want to move the goalposts again?FK

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

In this example I was referring to the loss of an allele (gene version) from the entire post-bottleneck cheetah population.

---

​

---

Yes, which could be accomplished by a single cheetah in sole possession of a useful allele dying without passing on the allele. This would be the loss of an allele from the entire post-bottleneck cheetah population. You seem to now imply that the entire population is required to possess the allele. The very fact that it is an allele says that some subset of the population, and not the entire population, possesses it. If this is not your argument, please be specific as to what you mean when you say loss of useful allele from the parent population. How is this accomplished, if not exactly how I described it?Recall, you said:

quote:

---

FW: If the cheetah lost a net sum of ONE useful allele from the parent population then it is patently obvious that its gene pool has LESS genetic information than the parent species. Do you agree or disagree with this?

---

How, in your example, did the allele benefit the population as a whole other than to provide genetic diversity? You seem to be mixing up the definitions of gene and allele.

quote:

---

FW: However, note that even when a single individual acquires a *new* inheritable deleterious mutation at meiosis, technically the gene pool has lost information, albeit an extremely small loss due to the existence at that loci of all those genes in the population without the mutation. You cannot claim the reciprocal unless the new mutation is beneficial to the population as a whole.

---

That’s one of the silliest assertions I have ever heard. You are making no sense at all. Let’s walk through this. If a single individual is born with a *new* inheritable deleterious mutation, then your assertion is that the gene pool has lost information, despite the fact that the wild type is unaffected in the rest of the population. I guess then if that individual dies without leaving offspring, the population gained the information back? If a horribly mutated individual is born, survives a few minutes, and then dies, was there a loss and then subsequent gain of information when the individual died?On the other hand, if an individual is born with a beneficial mutation, then it is not a gain unless it is beneficial to the population as a whole? What kind of logic is that? Please justify your argument. It appears to me that you are simply applying a blatant double standard. Your argument is similar to claiming that 2-1=1, but 2+1=2.

quote:

---

FW: If a superficial mutation such as sickle-cell or Mark’s nylon mutation is not an improvement over the wild type as a whole, then you can’t claim it added information to the gene pool.

---

To make sure I am clear on your definitions, do you consider sickle-cell to be a loss of information? On what basis? Because it’s deleterious? Does it matter what is happening in the genome, or is yours more of a qualitative argument? I am just trying to make sure your argument is consistent, because thus far it does not appear to be.

quote:

---

FW: If anyone here wants to again try to claim sickle-cell is an information gain, please find a single information scientist to agree with you.

---

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to consult a biologist on the matter? Would you accept the opinion of Tom Schneider on the matter? If not, why not?FK

You have an uncanny way of dancing around the periphery of an argument while avoiding the meat. I bet you have never heard that before, have you?There were two main points in my post. The first is in response to your assertion that loss of a single useful allele in the cheetah population would be a loss of information. I say then that the appearance of a single useful allele would be a gain. No, you say. It must benefit the entire population. I asked you to justify this, and you passed. I take it then that you concede the argument, as you appear to be unable to refute my points.Second I wrote the following:

quote:

---

To make sure I am clear on your definitions, do you consider sickle-cell to be a loss of information? On what basis? Because it’s deleterious? Does it matter what is happening in the genome, or is yours more of a qualitative argument? I am just trying to make sure your argument is consistent, because thus far it does not appear to be.

---

Your response:

quote:

---

FW: Of course I do!

---

Where’s the beef? I am not saying that it isn’t a decrease of information, but I want to understand on what basis you declare that it is a decrease. It appears to me that your definitions are inconsistent, so I am asking you to describe specifically what makes sickle cell a decrease of information. I don’t consider Of course I do to be a substantive response.Finally, you say:

quote:

---

FW: Anyway, here’s the target: gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation that provides a new benefit to the population as a whole. Find this, and you have a BINGO. I’ve spotted you the BING. Just go find the O!

---

I have already asked, without receiving an answer, why the mutation must benefit the population as a whole. Under your scenario, an individual could have an incredibly beneficial mutation, it could spread through a small portion of the population, allow the subpopulation to colonize a new environment, ultimately lead to speciation for the subpopulation, and it wasn’t an increase because it didn’t benefit the population as a whole. I am really having difficulty taking these kinds of arguments seriously.FK

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

FK: That’s one of the silliest assertions I have ever heard. You are making no sense at all. Let’s walk through this. If a single individual is born with a *new* inheritable deleterious mutation, then your assertion is that the gene pool has lost information, despite the fact that the wild type is unaffected in the rest of the population. I guess then if that individual dies without leaving offspring, the population gained the information back? If a horribly mutated individual is born, survives a few minutes, and then dies, was there a loss and then subsequent gain of information when the individual died?

---

​

Technically, yes, albeit incredibly miniscule. Do you have a problem with this?

---

Yes, actually I do. How can it possibly be a decrease in information when the rest of the gene pool is unaffected? Unless it somehow displaces a wild type allele, then information didn't decrease. Please respond with something more than a vague, qualitative argument if you intend to prove your point.FK