 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evolution, Creation, and Theism
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sorry, I don't understand your point. The spine' of the DNA molecule is like the pages in a book; the bases (G, C, A and T) are like the writing; the transcription process that 'reads' the bases and makes amino acids accordingly is like the process of reading a book and making sense of it. I hope I've followed your analogy but I don't get what point you're trying to make with it.
The point I am trying to make is that duplication of a section of DNA does not by necessity create new productive genetic information any more than repeating a word, sentence, or a page in an instruction manual increases the amount of useful
information in that manual:
quote:
"[T]he information contained in the genetic code, like all information or messages, is not made of matter ... The meaning is not a property of the arrangement of the symbols or alphabet of the code. The message or meaning in the genetic code is non-material and cannot be reduced to a physical or chemical property." (Overman, Dean L. "A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization" Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997).
Now, modern evolutionists have proposed gene duplication - polyploidy, for example - as proof of an increase of useful genetic information over time leading to the emergence of new taxonomic varieties. However, the evidence shows that, with the exception of certain plants such as wheat and potatoes, polyploidy when it occurs in animals is usually harmful. The following quotes are from evolutionists:
quote:
"Spontaneous duplication of the mammalian genome occurs in approximately 1% of fertilizations. Although one or more whole genome duplications are believed to have influenced vertebrate evolution, polyploidy of contemporary mammals is generally incompatible with normal development and function of all but a few tissues. Most often, divergence of ploidy from the diploid (2n) norm results in a disease state."(Eakin, G.S. and Behringer, R.R., Tetraploid development in the mouse, Developmental Dynamics 228:751–766, 2003.)
quote:
"[Polyploidy] is likely to cause a severe imbalance in gene product, and [its] chance of being incorporated into the population is small". (Li, W.-H., Molecular Evolution, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p. 270., 1997)
The reason that this duplication is harmful is because, even though there is an increase in DNA sections, there is not an increase in useful genetic information - on the contrary. There is disruption in the instructions for the development of the organism.
Further, if the gene duplication theory of macro-evolution were correct then we would expect a positive correlation between the complexity of the organism and the number and size of genes and chromosomes. That is, we would expect that as the number of genes and chromosomes increased we would see a greater complexity of form. Bacteria and single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA and humans beings the most. However, this is simply not the case. The bacterium Epulopiscium fishelsoni, for example, carries 25 times the amount of DNA as the human cell.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
The point I am trying to make is that duplication of a section of DNA does not by necessity create new productive genetic information any more than repeating a word, sentence, or a page in an instruction manual increases the amount of useful
information in that manual
And the point you're trying desperately to ignore is that if you have two copies of something, you can make whatever changes you like to one of them without any loss of information. It's not the duplication that results in new traits, it's the fact that you can 'mark up' (mutate) a copy without losing function.
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Now, modern evolutionists have proposed gene duplication - polyploidy, for example - as proof of an increase of useful genetic information over time leading to the emergence of new taxonomic varieties. However, the evidence shows that, with the exception of certain plants such as wheat and potatoes, polyploidy when it occurs in animals is usually harmful.
You seem to have trouble with the idea that gene duplication does not necessarily involve chromosome duplication. The former is far more common than the latter and usually not harmful.
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Further, if the gene duplication theory of macro-evolution were correct then we would expect a positive correlation between the complexity of the organism and the number and size of genes and chromosomes. That is, we would expect that as the number of genes and chromosomes increased we would see a greater complexity of form. Bacteria and single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA and humans beings the most. However, this is simply not the case. The bacterium Epulopiscium fishelsoni, for example, carries 25 times the amount of DNA as the human cell.
There are two obvious misunderstandings in the above paragraph.
1) DNA quantity is not the same as gene count. As already mentioned there are such things as duplicate genes, as well as non-coding sections of DNA.
2) Despite human self-centeredness, there's no reason to conclude that we are the most complex species on the planet. If anything, our long generational span puts us at a disadvantage as far as evolutionary adaptations go. A human generation is twenty to thirty years, while a bacterial generation can be twenty to thirty minutes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
. And its a hypothesis that has overwhelming evidence in suport of it and so is all but universally considered to be the case by people who have paid it any serious attention.
Since the First World War it became increasingly unpolitic for scientists, if they wanted a career in their chosen field, to profess disagreement with the theory of macro-evolution. Nevermind that the supposed mechanism for this evolution keeps changing whenever the evidence to contrary becomes too overwhelming. The dogma of evolution must remain sacrosanct!
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
. And its a hypothesis that has overwhelming evidence in suport of it and so is all but universally considered to be the case by people who have paid it any serious attention.
Since the First World War it became increasingly unpolitic for scientists, if they wanted a career in their chosen field, to profess disagreement with the theory of macro-evolution.
Yes, and for largely the same reason it's "unpolitic" for scientists to profess disagreement with the theory of a heliocentric solar system.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Nevermind that the supposed mechanism for this evolution keeps changing whenever the evidence to contrary becomes too overwhelming.
I don't know what you think you're referring to here, but based on my knowledge of the history of biology in the twentieth century I would suppose that it is a mixture of normal scientific research refining what we know on the one hand and anti-evolutionist distortions and misunderstandings on the other.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
more /tmp/sehysrhtujsrh.log
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
The point I am trying to make is that duplication of a section of DNA does not by necessity create new productive genetic information...
Of course it doesn't "by neccessity". I don't understand why you think that is relevant. It only has to every now and again. "Neccessity" is nothing to do with it. Evolution is contingent, historical, the product of many separate events. There is no need for predictable, neccessary, processes.
quote:
... polyploidy when it occurs in animals is usually harmful.
Of course. Perhaps as many as 5% of plant species are polyploid, and many more -in fact all that have ever been studied - show evidence of ancestral polyploidy that is now hidden because different chromosomes have evolved differently. Its much rarer in animals. That's pretty basic genetics. But it doesn't help your argument.
Plants and animals are very different from each other. Every species of plant is different from every other. Every species of animal is different from every other. There are millions of types of organism that aren't either plants or animals. All different from each other. Each has its own unique history. Just because something occured in the past in the ancestors of one species doesn't mean it has to occur in any other. Evolution proceeds differently in different species - if it didn't we'd all be the same!
Also what is possible for any organism is contrained by its development and basic structure. Bacteria are quite different from eukaryotes and there is no reason to believe that what happens to bacteria also happens to eukaryotes.
Eukaryotes come in a whole range of different basic structures, with different kinds of cells, and different kinds of life cycle. There are somewhere between about thirty and forty types of them, mostly tiny single-celled things, of which up about half a dozen sometimes grow into large complex organisms (animals, green plants, fungi, red algae, a group sometimes called stramenopiles or chrysophytes, and a large and varied group called alveolates which although (almost always) single-celled often have body plans as complex as multicellular organisms - some of them even have eyes!) Each of those large groups has a unique historical background and its own unique cell structures and genetic mechnisms. Within each group there is a variety of basic body plans - amongst animals and plants a huge variety with thousands of quite different structures, each with its own unique history. The legacy of that history constrains what they can do, how they can develop, how they evolve.
Its like that old joke where someone asks Irishman how he would get to Kerry and he says "I wouldn't start from here". You have to start from somewhere. Animals and plants are in very different places now, because we each have our own unique history, so animals can do some things plants can't, and plants can do some things animals can't. One of the things many plants can do and some animals can't is polyploidy.
For example mammals in particular have genetic mechanisms constraining the early development of embryos that make polyploidy very likely to be harmful for us. They also make asexual reproduction very difficult because some genes from the mother and from the father are activated in different ways. Lizards and amphibians and many kinds of fish have different ways of doing things and so can evolve asexuality. And there are LOADS of polyploid fish and amphibians. And yes, animal genomes in general - including mammals - seem to show evidence of ancestral polyploidy. (this Wikipedia page discusses it) Its something our ancestors could and did do, but we have evolved away from.
As usual in biology there are exceptions to this. Even in humans, ordinary cells are typically tetraploid during growth phase. The chromosomes can divide long before the cell does. In some adult tissues it can be years between chromosome replication and cell division if it ever happens at all. And some tissues are typically polyploid, such as liver cells, and others have multiple nuclei in one cell, such as in muscle.
Anyway, this bit of genetic history is wonderful, fascinating, complex, and beautiful. But simply not relevant to the argument you are making. Because different species evolve differently.
quote:
The following quotes are from evolutionists:
I don't think "evolutionist" is a helpful word in this context. Not only does it sound vaguely as if it is meant as an insult, it conceals the basic fact that effectively everyone who studies these things agrees that evolution occurs. There are no real "non-evolutionists" among biologists - well, hardly any. Probably not one in a thousand. Certainly not one in a hundred.
quote:
Further, if the gene duplication theory of macro-evolution were correct then we would expect a positive correlation between the complexity of the organism and the number and size of genes and chromosomes.
Well, it looks correct then, because we do see exactly that. Though I would be very wary of making much of it either way without a rigorous definition of what we mean by "complexity".
quote:
Bacteria and single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA and humans beings the most.
Sort of. And in fact that is exactly what we DO see.
Human beings are not the most complex organisms in a physiological sense - we are pretty much the same as most other mammals, not that different from birds or crocodiles, and many plants are far more complicated than we are at a metabolic level. Out of the couple of thousand types of biologically important molecules in our bodies we can only manufacture up to half ourselves - we have to get the rest in our food. Plants can make all of them (apart from ammonia - which is actually really really important).
Also many single-celled organisms are in fact very large and complex - such as some of those alveolates I mentioned earlier. They are in many ways much more like animals and plants than they are like simpler single-celled eukaryotes. And all eukaryotes share things that no prokaryotes like bacteria have.
quote:
However, this is simply not the case.
It simply is the case. In general, on the whole, statistically, yes it is. Though as always in biology there are exceptions. Because each organism and each species has its own unique history and is different from all the rest. Bacteria are not one generalised kind of simple blob. There are thousands of different types, probably millions, (some people estimate trillions) each with its own particular envornment and lifestyle. On the whole they have smaller genomes than fungi or protists, and fungi and protists have smaller genomes than plants and animals. On the whole, mostly, in general. But as usual in biology there are exceptions.
Such as:
quote:
The bacterium Epulopiscium fishelsoni, for example, carries 25 times the amount of DNA as the human cell.
So it does. But that is because it has an unusually high copy number of genes. That is not 25 times the number of different genes that humans have, it has hundreds of thousands of copies of a much smaller number of genes - no-one is sure exactly how much smaller because it has never been sequenced, but it seems to be about 3.8Mb - very typical of large complex bacteria, and a tiny fraction of what we have.
The reason for this is probably that the cells are huge - maybe a quarter of a millimetre long which might not sound large to us (or even to an amoeba) but is gigantic for bacteria. Epulopiscium fishelsoni, like many other large bacteria, has multiple copies of its whole genome. Presumably this is because bacteria don't have the mechanisms that eukaryotes do for moving things around in a cell. A small amoeba - might be the same size as one of these bacteria, but it has loads of internal structures inside itself to partition different chemicals into different places, and to move new proteins where they are required. Its stuffed full of membrances and vesicles and fibres of various kinds - just as our own cells are. Bacteria are not like this. Newly manufactured gene products more or less diffuse to where they are needed. In a small bacterium that is no problem - but in one a third of a millimetre long its. (See this paper in Nature about prokaryote cell size and genome size if yu can - I'm not 100% sure if that link works from everywhere)
It also might be a side-effect of growing large. Bacterial cells frequently duplicate their genomes, and then divide in two, with one set of genes in each daughter cell. Some - many - fast-growing bacteria can do this continuously, so that a chromosome is dividing in two in once place and each new strand is being suplicted again further downstream. Obviously the cell can't divide while this is going on so there are briefly two, four, eight or more copies of the genome in the mother cell. If you think about it, what is needed for a bacterial cell to grow very large is for this process to go on for a while without any cell division.
Not only bacteria do that. Fungi typically have huge cells - or rather no internal cell walls at all - orgnised in to strands which can be metres in length - these have many nuclei because it takes so lonmg to get stuff from one end to the other (sometimes after sex one fungal "cell" can contain multiple copies of nuclei from different individuals - I think its even possible fro one end of a strand to be having sex with one individual while the another part of it is doing it with a third one - but then fungal sex is famously complex, much more so than ours) You could consider that to be one huge cell or many small ones that haven't formed membranes between them yet - just as with the bacteria. Loads of animal cells are multinucleate, with more than one copy of the genome. Including muscle. Are your muscle cells 25 times more complex than your brain cells? Yet they have many more copies of each gene.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
. And its a hypothesis that has overwhelming evidence in suport of it and so is all but universally considered to be the case by people who have paid it any serious attention.
Since the First World War it became increasingly unpolitic for scientists, if they wanted a career in their chosen field, to profess disagreement with the theory of macro-evolution.
Yes, and for largely the same reason it's "unpolitic" for scientists to profess disagreement with the theory of a heliocentric solar system.
You're rather fond of the overblown analogy, aren't you?
From Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University:
quote:
The all-embracing grip of macro-evolution on modern scientific thought, and especially on the thinking of academic biologists, has had an unfortunate dampening effect on open and frank discussion of problems in evolutionary theory, especially in the primary literature. As my own experience and that of many others demonstrates, there are powerful censures in academic life that sharply limit expression of doubts and dissent from evolution. These include reassignment of courses in spite of technical competence and experience, denial of research funding and laboratory space, denial of sabbatical leaves, discouraging graduate students from working with
the dissenter, ostracism, and possible denial of tenure or even loss of employment.
In such a restrictive climate it is not surprising that many in the academy who have private doubts about evolutionary theory choose not to make those doubts public.
With that kind of totalitarian thought police on the prowl it's hardly surprising that it's unpolitic.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Since the First World War it became increasingly unpolitic for scientists, if they wanted a career in their chosen field, to profess disagreement with the theory of macro-evolution.
Um, no. Any researcher who found conclusive evidence disproving (some aspect of) evolutionary theory would be forever famous. Einstein and Bohr, for example, are famous, in a sense, for proving Newton was "wrong".
quote:
Nevermind that the supposed mechanism for this evolution keeps changing whenever the evidence to contrary becomes too overwhelming. The dogma of evolution must remain sacrosanct!
That's a feature, not a bug. The above suggests that change in scientific theories means somehow it was "wrong" or that the scientists were deluded or disingenuous. At one time, theories like the ether or phlogiston seemed reasonable. Now they don't, based on experimental evidence, and instead we have the theory of relativity and the theory of the covalent bond. That's how science works. It evolves, and sometimes there are gaps between the demise of an old theory and the development of a new one. During that gap, there can be a multiplicity of hypotheses being tested. As experimental evidence adds up, some are discarded and others become the new theories. Again, that's how science works.
One of the things I find frustrating about discussing evolution is that often the questions or "challenges" to evolution demonstrate that the questioner simply doesn't understand some really basic biological and geological facts and principles, as well as how science is done. It's like trying to discuss the formation of lunar craters with someone who wants to argue the moon is made of cheddar, NOT gorgonzola. I will reiterate the recommendation to read any of Dawkins' various books on evolutionary biology. Dawkins himself says (on the jacket) that if you only read one of his books, read The Extended Phenotype. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
CraigMaddie,
I notice with interest but a complete lack of surprise that you are quite pointedly ignoring Croseus' example of when something you claimed was impossible actually happened.
I also notice with interest that your quote is from Dean Kenyon, the man wrote the original version of Of Pandas and People - the book that exposed the transitional form between Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design proponent; Cdesign Proponentsist. The man flies under false colours. And a statement from someone who personally materially profits from being a creationist that the establishment is not bending over backwards to accommodate views that have negative predictive power is not a serious critique so much as someone advertising a manufactured controversy so he can sell more of his own books.
And Croseus is exactly right. Creationism is about as useful as geocentricism. What predictions have been made (Irreducible Complexity - and you have made one in the thread yourself) have, like yours, been demonstrated to be false. Where they don't make predictions that are different from the mainstream understanding they are irrelevant.
The second a creationist can make a prediction that is different to predictions from the existing biological paradigm, scientists will praise them. Of such things are Nobel Prizes made. As OliviaG says, Einstein proved Newton wrong - and Newton's mechanics were as strong as anything. Until then they are about as scientifically relevant as the time cube guy.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Since the First World War it became increasingly unpolitic for scientists, if they wanted a career in their chosen field, to profess disagreement with the theory of macro-evolution.
Yes, and for largely the same reason it's "unpolitic" for scientists to profess disagreement with the theory of a heliocentric solar system.
You're rather fond of the overblown analogy, aren't you?
From Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University:
quote:
[various complaints complaints about how advocating evidence-free nonsense will hurt your career]
With that kind of totalitarian thought police on the prowl it's hardly surprising that it's unpolitic.
So comparing one unsupported bit of nonsense with another is an "overblown analogy", but comparing not getting tenure to Orwell's 1984 is perfectly legitimate? Do you even know what totalitarianism is?
I'll note you're still avoiding addressing the actual science being discussed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to have trouble with the idea that gene duplication does not necessarily involve chromosome duplication. The former is far more common than the latter and usually not harmful.
Actually, gene duplication is very often responsible for genetic diseases:
Gene Duplication and Bone Cancer
Gene Duplication and Alzheimers Disease
Gene Duplication and Parkinson's Disease
But to your mind this same overwhelmingly deleterious process has been responsible for the emergence of ever higher genera and taxa?
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
CraigMaddie,
I notice with interest but a complete lack of surprise that you are quite pointedly ignoring Croseus' example of when something you claimed was impossible actually happened.
I have to say that I am surprised at the imputation of bad motives or dishonesty on my part from a few people here. I genuinely believe that macro-evolution doesn't stand up to modern science but am more than willing to be corrected just as I was on the point of order arising in a way that is conformable to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Actually, there have been so many posts on this thread that I have probably overlooked this example. So, no, I'm not trying to avoid it. I'll have a look at his posts and find what you mean.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
OK, found the post. Let me check the links.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Dawkins himself says (on the jacket) that if you only read one of his books, read The Extended Phenotype.
That's because The Extended Phenotype is the one where he is explicitly arguing his particular theory about the unit of selection. It's more directed towards biological practitioners than his other books are. As I understand it, there isn't yet a consensus on whether he's right or wrong. If there is a consensus developing it's that the community is sick of the academic infighting over the question.
Dawkins doesn't leave his pet theories out of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker (especially The Selfish Gene) but those books are still more directed towards explaining aspects of evolution on which there is more general agreement.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Actually, gene duplication is very often responsible for genetic diseases:
But to your mind this same overwhelmingly deleterious process has been responsible for the emergence of ever higher genera and taxa?
It doesn't matter whether most instances are deleterious. It only has to be beneficial once or twice for the descendants to start having more descendants.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
I have to say that I am surprised at the imputation of bad motives or dishonesty on my part from a few people here. I genuinely believe that macro-evolution doesn't stand up to modern science but am more than willing to be corrected just as I was on the point of order arising in a way that is conformable to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If we want to talk about accusations of dishonesty, you are accusing almost every single practicing biologist in the world of dishonesty. And of a complete lack of self interest. Overturning established theories is how you become legendary. And would be worth a massive fortune from all the creationists as well as a nobel prize and a clear conscience. For your ideas to be valid, you have to accuse almost every single practicing biologist* (and a lot of non-practicing ones) of corruption and dishonesty that goes directly against their naked self interest. And before I posted you launched an accusation of "totalitarian thought police" - your own words. A tone argument that people are being mean to you by accusing you of dishonesty after you made implicit statements about honesty of almost every single practicing biologist in the world in the area they devote their life to and love, and explicit accusations of totalitarian thought police brings parables of motes and beams to mind.
quote:
Actually, there have been so many posts on this thread that I have probably overlooked this example. So, no, I'm not trying to avoid it. I'll have a look at his posts and find what you mean.
Glad to see you have. And yes, Gene Duplication is very often harmful. (Actually it's most often neutral). But you know what? This isn't a problem for the species diversifying. The harmful mutations die off. Even if only one in a thousand of the duplications has a positive impact, that simply means that there are successes. The failures fail and don't get passed on. The successes succeed and do. There's no problem here.
Still, if you want your mind blown, start looking into evolutionary methods for designing hardware. A good pop-sci example of using evolutionary methods to create a circuit and bring new functions into being is here (just 100 logic gates and no clock to reliably identify two separate tones and respond to stop and go commands with the method found through an evolutionary process - macroevolution in action) and here's the actual paper from 1996.
* And I do mean almost every single practicing biologist. If you're going to produce a list of evolution-doubting scientists including your author of Of Pandas and People, compare that with Project Steve
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It may be worth stating explicitly that one gene may code for a protein in use in multiple ways and in multiple places for different things:
One gene ≠ one trait
This appears to have been assumed in some anti-science posts above.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In the vast majority of cases several genes=one trait. With the set of genes for each trait often overlapping with the sets of genes for other traits.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Dawkins himself says (on the jacket) that if you only read one of his books, read The Extended Phenotype.
That's because The Extended Phenotype is the one where he is explicitly arguing his particular theory about the unit of selection. It's more directed towards biological practitioners than his other books are. As I understand it, there isn't yet a consensus on whether he's right or wrong. If there is a consensus developing it's that the community is sick of the academic infighting over the question.
Dawkins doesn't leave his pet theories out of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker (especially The Selfish Gene) but those books are still more directed towards explaining aspects of evolution on which there is more general agreement.
Yes. Complete agreement.
The Extended Phenotype is an attempt at contributing to theoretical biology as much as a popular work. Of his other books, The Selfish Gene is rather obsessed with internal arguments among biologists from 1970s and is now pretty dated (also I think a lot of it is wrong but that's just me). River out of Eden is probably the easiest read, Climbing Mount Improbable is the one that is most on-topic here. Unweaving the Rainbow is possibly the best-written andThe Ancestor's Tale is one of the best, perhaps the best, popular account of "big picture" systematics that I have ever read.
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
But to your mind this same overwhelmingly deleterious process has been responsible for the emergence of ever higher genera and taxa?
Yes. I am still unclear why you think it can't be.
There is obviously some disconnection here, a lack of clarity, some hidden variable that I'm not quite getting, because as far as I can see all the points you raised, including this one, have been very clearly answered. The objections don't seem to be about biology but some bits of philosophy imported into biology from somewhere else - these substances of species, whatever they are, are nothing to do with biology.
This isn't rocket science. Its certainly not quantum mechanics. The basics of evolutionary biology, genetics, taxonomy, systematics, and so on are easy enough to understand. It doesn't need any complicated mathematics. Pretty much anybody can understand it. Much of it is about stuff we talk about and see around us all the time - kinship, descent, growth, sex, inheritance.
That's one reason the common YEC way of quoting the this that or the other writer as some kind of counter authority to the mainstream views is so odd. Some of it reads as if they've been searching for odd sentences here or there from interviews or newspaper articles hoping to find one that seems to contradict the general views of evolutionary biologists and then they brandish it around. So on the one hand they ignore the views of the vast majority of biologists, and on the other they cherry pick odd handwaving comments from anywhere and ascribe them all sorts of authority.
I don't think this really needs arguments from authority. Some other scientific topics might. Most scientists can't cope with the maths behind quantum physics or some of the weirder bits of cosmology, never mind most other people. But that's not the case with basic biology. Its really not very hard.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
It's really not about science at all. If you hang around on Dead Horses as long as I have, you start to notice that Genesis (including quotes from it in the NT) is brandished as a compilation of clobber texts for a lot of things - especially trying to put women and gay people in their traditional place: below heterosexual men.
When posters fail to make their case that there's anything bad about married gay people or women priests they not uncommonly reach for Genesis as if it's the last word on human origins/biology, or differences between men and women, and they tend to do so in a completely po-faced way, as if it is all literally true and 'that settles that, then'.
But of course it doesn't, because a lot of those portentous statements have gone the way of phlogiston and the four humours. So the Genesis-citers are left with either flourishing their trump cards and pretending not to notice that they are valueless, or full-on creationism. The trouble with appealing to myth or metaphor driven interpretations for them is that they do often want to claim or pretend that these texts say something fundamental about men and women/gay people with a basis in fact.
So it's not a surprise to see Creationist-style thinking making inroads with some Catholic conservatives.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Clearly, the Church was not stating that the very blades of grass that we see outside of our window were created ex nihilo at the beginning of creation since we see that they have grown from seeds. What is meant is that the type of substance of each species was created ex nihilo. Otherwise the phrase is meaningless, since, as you noticed, the alternative interpretation is absurd.
But the teaching you quoted originally (“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and corporal, as regards their whole substance, have been created by God from nothing, let him be anathema.”) didn’t talk about ‘species’ but about ‘things’. And it is obviously, trivially, true that not all ‘things’ were created directly by God, that not even the original type of each thing was created directly by God. It is obviously the case that the sense in which God created the chicken korma was by a developmental process including natural resources and human ingenuity, and that fact doesn’t disturb Catholic theology in the slightest. The only way that the analogous gradual development of a biological type could disturb your theology is if you want it to.
To put it another way, if you were to see macroevolution actually occurring, you wouldn’t have to stop being a Catholic.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Strictly speaking, God is outside time and therefore there is no such thing as a moment of creation. God creates the whole shebang from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch all at one go sub specie eternitate.
Sure, but you know what I mean. Craigmaddie’s view, which is what I’m trying to engage with, seems to be that God has to create the original of every biological type in some direct special way for his church’s teachings to be true.
I don’t think that can be right, because the teaching he quotes isn’t specific to biological types, and plainly cannot mean (because no reasonable person could mean to suggest) that God has to create the original of any other complex object in a direct and special way if it is to exist. If the teaching is generally consistent with, indirect creation in the ordinary course of ‘the whole shebang’, it is consistent with indirect creation for species as well as for everything else.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[tangent]I’m actually of the (probably minority) view that there isn’t a whole lot of conflict between Dawkins’ and Gould’s theories, and such differences as there are have been exaggerated and misunderstood (to some extent, by the gentlemen themselves).
As I understand it, the Dawkins' faction response to Gould and Lewontin is that they're talking utter nonsense and, besides, the stuff they're saying is trivially true and everyone's known it all along so what are they making a fuss about?
And I think that Dawkins misunderstands here. It’s been a while since I read him on the subject, but my recollection is that his critique is sound if one assumes that what Gould primarily wants to explain is adaptive complexity. And I don’t think that is what Gould primarily wants to explain. It’s one facet of evolution, for him. For Dawkins, it’s a consuming passion.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's really not about science at all. If you hang around on Dead Horses as long as I have, you start to notice that Genesis (including quotes from it in the NT) is brandished as a compilation of clobber texts for a lot of things - especially trying to put women and gay people in their traditional place: below heterosexual men.
Glad to see that you're now insinuating that I look down on women and gay people as some kind of subspecies.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If we want to talk about accusations of dishonesty, you are accusing almost every single practicing biologist in the world of dishonesty. And of a complete lack of self interest. Overturning established theories is how you become legendary. And would be worth a massive fortune from all the creationists as well as a nobel prize and a clear conscience. For your ideas to be valid, you have to accuse almost every single practicing biologist* (and a lot of non-practicing ones) of corruption and dishonesty that goes directly against their naked self interest. And before I posted you launched an accusation of "totalitarian thought police" - your own words. A tone argument that people are being mean to you by accusing you of dishonesty after you made implicit statements about honesty of almost every single practicing biologist in the world in the area they devote their life to and love, and explicit accusations of totalitarian thought police brings parables of motes and beams to mind.
What a ridiculous ad hominem accusation. Where am I accusing "every single practicing biologist in the world of dishonesty"?
I think you need to take a deep breath and try to read what I am saying. I am not placing any doubt on the empirical observations of any biologist. What I am placing doubt on is the validity of their extrapolation from their the empirical observations to macroevolution. This is where empirical science passes over into the philosophy of science. To maintain that a biologist has come to a wrong conclusion philsophically is not to accuse him or her of dishonesty. As much as you would like to accuse me of that.
Are the arguments for macroevolution so weak that you have to fall back on vituperation?
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
I am not placing any doubt on the empirical observations of any biologist.
But you quite clearly are. And when other posters here, including myself, refuted what you said you simply igniored the replies and repeated your original points as if no-one had said anything.
quote:
What I am placing doubt on is the validity of their extrapolation from their the empirical observations to macroevolution.
Observation and theory always cycle in to each other.You can't do one without the other. You don' know what questions to ask without a model to work with, there are no pure unbiased
And evolution (I think the artificial category of "macroevolution" is very unhelpful here) is as well-grounded and as well-tested as pretty much any other major chunk of theory in biology. There is nothing very special about it as a kind of scientific theory - the sort of evidence that supports it is the same sort as is used to suport all kinds of other bodies of theory - nor is their anything very difficult about it - most of the big questions can be easily explained to someone who hasn't studied biology beyond school (you don't find that in a lot of other science).
I imagine you go to the doctor now and again and sometimes get prescribed medicines? That's based on biology. And a very large chunk of them have surprisingly little evidence behind them. Maybe as many of half of the drug interventins we commony use have no real statistical evidence behind them - and quite a few of those that do have no widely agreed mechanism - there are many medical interventions that we know work but aren't sure why (especially in the mental health field).
There is a much bigger gap between "observation" and "theory" in practically all of the biology behind many common drugs than there is in evolutionary biology. Evolution has better biological support than antidepressants.
quote:
To maintain that a biologist has come to a wrong conclusion philsophically...
I suspect that might be your error. You are confusing scientific sttements with philosophical ones. You seem to have identified some philosophical implications of evolution which contradict what you see as some absolute claims of the Roman Catholic Church, and so you reject the science that leads people to think that evolution happens. But as you haven't yet identified what these are on this thread its very hard to know what you think the problem is.
Is there any chance you could explain what you actually meant by phrases like "principle of animation of the substance" and in particular "the type of substance of each species".
Because from where I am sitting these have asbolutely nothing to do with the biological observations you are denying, and I think it muddies the waters no end to import those concepts - whatever they in fact are - into a discussion of biology.
And phrases like "the type of substance of each species" look like the old neo-Platonist essentialist thinking that we had to escape from before biology could be understood. It wasn't just irrelevant to biology it was antagonistic to. We couldn't really do biology until we got away from essentialist thinking and on to population thinking when studying the natural world.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
What a ridiculous ad hominem accusation. Where am I accusing "every single practicing biologist in the world of dishonesty"?
To start at the very beginning, are you aware of what a scientific theory is?
quote:
From Wikipedia:
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
So far as I can understand, based on a mix of incredulity and your understanding of long dead philosophers and theologians, you are claiming that macroevolution is not part of the best explanation that we have of available facts and there is no predictive power to a theory that includes it. In short every time a biologist who knows what he is talking about refers to the Theory of Evolution then he is lying according to you.
quote:
I think you need to take a deep breath and try to read what I am saying.
Possibly you need to take a deep breath, find out what a scientific theory is (and so what you are actually claiming rather than what you think you are), read some of the evidence on macroevolution for a lot of evidence (there's plenty more and that document is seven years out of date), and then come back to me on any possible motive for this conspiracy almost all biologists would have to be in to have slipped in an invalid Scientific Theory.
quote:
I am not placing any doubt on the empirical observations of any biologist. What I am placing doubt on is the validity of their extrapolation from their the empirical observations to macroevolution.
You mean empirical observations of macroevolution (really just evolution - there is no inherent difference) actually having occured? (See Croseus' post above). You can not place doubt on the validity of empirical observations of macroevolution happening to the conclusion that it does happen - you can merely call them liars or mistaken (both happen).
quote:
This is where empirical science passes over into the philosophy of science. To maintain that a biologist has come to a wrong conclusion philsophically is not to accuse him or her of dishonesty. As much as you would like to accuse me of that.
All the above would be high sounding language with a little credibility macroevolution had not been demonstrated. If it has been demonstrated empirically then you're in a different ball park. If your philosophy can not handle current scientific theories then it's time to rethink your philosophy because it is almost certainly wrong.
quote:
Are the arguments for macroevolution so weak that you have to fall back on vituperation?
No. Not until you cover your eyes, ignore that which is written by Ken, Croseus, and myself (and others) both giving examples of macroevolution in action, accuse biologists of having "totalitarian thought police", and otherwise step outside the bounds of polite disagreement.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But you quite clearly are. And when other posters here, including myself, refuted what you said you simply igniored the replies and repeated your original points as if no-one had said anything.
As I said, I am still working my way through the thread since I have limited internet access. Don't worry, I intend to address polyploidy, gene duplication, and Richard Lenski's findings (plus your own points).
By the way, the playground comments don't really add anything to the thread. I've definitely hit a raw nerve it appears.
[ 05. September 2011, 13:45: Message edited by: Craigmaddie ]
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
By the way, the playground comments don't really add anything to the thread. I've definitely hit a raw nerve it appears.
Yes, some people don't like having their contributions to a debate ignored.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
By the way, the playground comments don't really add anything to the thread. I've definitely hit a raw nerve it appears.
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
With that kind of totalitarian thought police on the prowl it's hardly surprising that it's unpolitic.
By the way, the accusations of "totalitarian thought police" make me think that you want a hell thread. You make bold plain text accusations like that and then complain about the civility of others, especially when I rub your nose into exactly how lacking in civility you are?
I'm not sure whether this comes under the heading of "motes and beams" or "can dish it out but can't take it".
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Hey, let's all chill:
Darwin's compatible with Christianity
![[Cool]](cool.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It doesn't matter whether most instances are
deleterious. It only has to be beneficial once or twice for the descendants to start having more descendants.
Well, let's look at random gene duplication-plus-natural selection as the supposed mechanism for the emergence of higher taxa and genera, even though the vast majority of such duplications are - despite what Croesus claimed - quite clearly harmful.
While it is theoretically possible that a random gene duplication might be beneficial, such a duplication would need to be expressed in the phenotype in a manner that causes the organism to be selected over another individual of that species that does not manifest that duplication in its phenotype. Now, the fact is that the vast majority of mutations in general are selectively neutral, that is, they are not manifested in the phenotype to the degree that they would confer either a selective advantage or disadvantage. So, even if we were able to identify a beneficial duplication at the level of the genome, which would be extremely unusual in the face of the overwhelming proportion of deletrious duplications*, it is even more unlikely that it would be manifested in the phenotype in such a way as to guarantee that it will be favoured by natural selection.
Now, you might say that, although the proportion of beneficial duplications is indeed very small and the proportion of those that confer a elective advantage smaller still, there nevertheless exists a good chance over time that such a highly unusual beneficial gene duplication might be passed on and lead to an accumulation of productive genetic information over a number of generations.
However, this is to ignore the fact that genetic mutations of any kind do not occur in isolation but, rather, in competition with any number of other mutations. Because most genetic mutations fall into Kimura's (1979) zone of near-neutrality this means that most deletrious mutations (of which there is a massive preponderance) are not eliminated through natural selection. The existence of these deletrious mutations that cannot be eliminated due to their 'near neutrality' means that there is a net loss in useful genetic information over time.
This was demonstrated in practice in crop improvement research whereby plants were exposed to genetic mutations caused by miniature cobalt bombs. The idea was that the sheer mass of mutations would result in a number of beneficial mutations and, thus, hasten 'evolution'. Most of these experiments have been abandoned because the only worthwhile products were ornamental or miniature plants that were genetically poorer than their parents.
The point of all this is that duplication, whilst it results in an increase of the DNA structure, does not by any stretch of the imagination result in an increase of useful genetic information. It is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely.
It's interesting that no-one has addressed my point about the non-material nature of the information in the genome since this makes it clear that there is not a direct correlation between an increase in DNA structure and productive genetic information.
I want to keep with the subject of gene duplication and epistasis in my next post. Please be patient and don't assume that I am ignoring anyone's posts.
* Gerrish and Lenski (1998) estimate the ratio of
beneficial mutations to deletrious mutations to be in the range of one million to one. Other researchers state that the rate of beneficial mutations is so low as to make any measurement impossible (Bataillon, 2000; Elena et al, 1998)
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Hey, let's all chill:
Darwin's compatible with Christianity
OliviaG
So, says someone in the Vatican. The concept "The Vatican" is not the same as binding Church teaching. The quote about Pius XII ("when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans") is a misrepresentation of his views as in Humani Generis.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Okay, I'll try another source - JP2. Here's the link for context.
He's cool with evolution being a widely accepted scienfic theory:
quote:
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
He does draw a line in the sand:
quote:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ... Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.
(emphasis mine)
What the "mind" is or how it arose is nowhere near being settled in the scientific community, whether we're talking biological or artificial systems, and whether we call it self-awareness or intelligence or whatever. Further research is needed. The soul is currently neither measurable or observable, so science can say nothing about its purpose, characteristics, workings or origins. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
So, even if we were able to identify a beneficial duplication at the level of the genome, which would be extremely unusual in the face of the overwhelming proportion of deletrious duplications*, it is even more unlikely that it would be manifested in the phenotype in such a way as to guarantee that it will be favoured by natural selection.
I'm sorry: saying that a duplication or anything else is beneficial is just the same as saying that it will express itself in the phenotype in such a way that it will be favoured in natural selection. (Not guaranteed to be favoured: our young creature is not automatically immune to the attention of predators, natural disasters, etc.) I don't know what other definition of 'beneficial' we could be using.
quote:
The existence of these deletrious mutations that cannot be eliminated due to their 'near neutrality' means that there is a net loss in useful genetic information over time.
Let me see if I've understood your point. You're saying that over time the effects of any beneficial mutations must be drowned out by the effects of the near-neutral deleterious mutations.
If deleterious mutations are near neutral, then they're just not that deleterious.
Also, why are they supposed to affect creatures with beneficial mutations with greater frequency than those without? The beneficial mutation is in competition with its peers who have the same near-neutral mutations, not with the ur-creature that may or may not have existed a couple of generations back.
The word 'information' is ambiguous in that it has at least one rigourous mathematical definition which does not quite agree with the way the word's used in natural language. For example, according to the mathematical definition if you rearrange the words of a message to create nonsense, you increase information. The concept of useful information doesn't have any kind of rigourous definition that I'm aware of.
I think your argument is relying on the ambiguous concept of information to do work that really isn't appropriate in this context. If you're going to use the rigourous mathematical definition I don't think you can use the word 'useful' to qualify it. If you're using the natural language definition as a metaphor, then you have to work it through: what is sending information to what and how is it interpreted?
For example, you could say the environment 'interprets' the mutation. A mutation in favour of flightlessness is beneficial on an island with no natural predators but a environment with lots of natural predators interprets the same mutation as deleterious.
I'm sorry - I think this argument doesn't actually shows what it's supposed to.
quote:
This was demonstrated in practice in crop improvement research whereby plants were exposed to genetic mutations caused by miniature cobalt bombs. The idea was that the sheer mass of mutations would result in a number of beneficial mutations and, thus, hasten 'evolution'.
The mistake here is surely on the order of supposing that because eggs need to be kept warm to incubate, putting them in a pan of boiling water will help them incubate really well?
quote:
It's interesting that no-one has addressed my point about the non-material nature of the information in the genome since this makes it clear that there is not a direct correlation between an increase in DNA structure and productive genetic information.
Again, you haven't made it clear enough how you're using the word 'information' for anybody to address it usefully.
Also, I think I did point out that unless you're careful it's easy to make a category mistake and so think that because universals or forms or information aren't material things they must therefore be non-material things. Which they are not.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Kimura's (1979) zone of near-neutrality
(Bataillon, 2000; Elena et al, 1998)
One more point: quoting an author with date makes you look like you've got references, but it's only of use if you give the full bibliographic reference - title, journal, etc. And, this being an internet discussion board, the responsibility is on you to provide links unless what you're referring to is on some easily available reference site such as wikipedia.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
... The existence of these deletrious mutations that cannot be eliminated due to their 'near neutrality' means that there is a net loss in useful genetic information over time. ...
Unless the organism ends up in an environment where the deleterious mutation is actually an advantage. Then it becomes very useful information. Sickle-cell anemia is the classic example.
quote:
... It's interesting that no-one has addressed my point about the non-material nature of the information in the genome since this makes it clear that there is not a direct correlation between an increase in DNA structure and productive genetic information.
To expand on Dafyd's comment,
a) I have no clue what "non-material nature of the information in the genome" means,
b) I don't know what "an increase in DNA structure" means,
c) and if by "productive genetic information" you mean sequences of base pairs that code for proteins, that is only a part of the essential information in the genome. The genome has e.g. start and stop messages and on / off switches. There are also genes that are duplicate copies, or expressed only under certain conditions or in particular tissues, etc. If you're going to make an informatics-based argument, you need to be really specific about what you're talking about - base pairs, genes, chromosomes, whatever. Cheers, OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
While it is theoretically possible that a random gene duplication might be beneficial, such a duplication would need to be expressed in the phenotype in a manner that causes the organism to be selected over another individual of that species that does not manifest that duplication in its phenotype.
I don't think this is right. All you need is for a gene duplication to not be very harmful to the organism's survival chances. Then the organism stands a fair chance of producing offspring, some or all (depending on what type of organism you're talking about) of which will also have the duplicated gene.
Remember it's likely that this duplicated gene is not necessary for the organism's functioning, so mutations that stop the duplicated gene from working will probably not reduce the organism's likelihood of producing offspring. And when, by the odd chance in a million (or whatever), a mutation or series of mutations happen that produce a beneficial effect, evolution has occurred. The gene duplication in itself does not have to be beneficial at all, just not disastrous to the organism's survival chances.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Well, let's look at random gene duplication-plus-natural selection as the supposed mechanism for the emergence of higher taxa and genera, even though the vast majority of such duplications are - despite what Croesus claimed - quite clearly harmful.
And what has your above claim got to do with the price of oil in the Nantucket market? The truly harmful mutations die off.
While it is theoretically possible that a random gene duplication might be beneficial, such a duplication would need to be expressed in the phenotype in a manner that causes the organism to be selected over another individual of that species that does not manifest that duplication in its phenotype. Now, the fact is that the vast majority of mutations in general are selectively neutral, that is, they are not manifested in the phenotype to the degree that they would confer either a selective advantage or disadvantage. So, even if we were able to identify a beneficial duplication at the level of the genome, which would be extremely unusual in the face of the overwhelming proportion of deletrious duplications*, it is even more unlikely that it would be manifested in the phenotype in such a way as to guarantee that it will be favoured by natural selection.
Now, you might say that, although the proportion of beneficial duplications is indeed very small and the proportion of those that confer a elective advantage smaller still, there nevertheless exists a good chance over time that such a highly unusual beneficial gene duplication might be passed on and lead to an accumulation of productive genetic information over a number of generations.
quote:
However, this is to ignore the fact that genetic mutations of any kind do not occur in isolation but, rather, in competition with any number of other mutations. Because most genetic mutations fall into Kimura's (1979) zone of near-neutrality this means that most deletrious mutations (of which there is a massive preponderance) are not eliminated through natural selection. The existence of these deletrious mutations that cannot be eliminated due to their 'near neutrality' means that there is a net loss in useful genetic information over time.
And here, with all due respect, you are talking complete Platonist bollocks. Genetic information across the population increases even with faintly deleterious mutations. A poodle style coat is not much use to a wolf in its natural environment - it is a faintly deleterious mutation. But it is still extra information in the wolf species and is useful if brought out and brought into the right condition. And strong selection (either natural or artificial) may make poodle-style fir the new ideal. That's what genetic diversity means - a collection of slightlty deleterious traits under the present conditions that might when things change be exactly what is needed.
quote:
This was demonstrated in practice in crop improvement research whereby plants were exposed to genetic mutations caused by miniature cobalt bombs. The idea was that the sheer mass of mutations would result in a number of beneficial mutations and, thus, hasten 'evolution'. Most of these experiments have been abandoned because the only worthwhile products were ornamental or miniature plants that were genetically poorer than their parents.
Of course. Next you'll be telling me of people who tried weight training by picking up the heaviest weights they wanted to lift and threw their backs out.
Being more serious, most mutations are, as you said, bad ones. Which means that if you raise the mutation rate too far you raise the chance of getting bad mutations that swamp the good ones.
quote:
The point of all this is that duplication, whilst it results in an increase of the DNA structure, does not by any stretch of the imagination result in an increase of useful genetic information.
Define "useful genetic information". Here's one of the big places you fall down. Look at all the variety in the coats for dogs. Wolves as a species have that much variety - but it's not useful to them. They are genetically diverse and for them most of this variation is neutral. It only proves useful once you start either natural or artificial selection based on that factor. Is it "useful information"? Arguments both ways.
quote:
It is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely.
Which is one reason it takes a massively long time and a lot of rolls of the dice. Unlikely just means it takes longer.
quote:
It's interesting that no-one has addressed my point about the non-material nature of the information in the genome since this makes it clear that there is not a direct correlation between an increase in DNA structure and productive genetic information.
What do you mean by the non-material nature of the information in the genome? Your warmed over Platonist theology which you think as a practicing Catholic outranks the Pope's?
quote:
* Gerrish and Lenski (1998) estimate the ratio of
beneficial mutations to deletrious mutations to be in the range of one million to one. Other researchers state that the rate of beneficial mutations is so low as to make any measurement impossible (Bataillon, 2000; Elena et al, 1998)
Very good. You can research. But apparently not understand the arguments. Few mutations are beneficial; no one argues that. And that is why the cobalt experiments fail - they simply provide too many mutations. Mutations happen by chance and it's hard to improve on a design by chance. But you are entirely ignoring the function of Natural Selection on this effect.
Mutation says we will try in incremental steps just about everything even though most of it is almost certainly going to be neutral at best. Natural selection says we discard the failures and keep the neutrals and the successes.
To pick an analogy, we start with several packs of cards and deal five cards per turn.
Card-selection says that we throw away any hand with an average value of less than six unless it contains two trumps. If they have an average value of six or more we shuffle them back in to the pack and then draw another hand. Red joker always survives and shuffles in, black joker means the hand always dies. (Discard jokers after use).
Environmental change says that every time you draw two aces in a hand you change trumps - if one ace is trumps, the other ace becomes the new trump suit and if neither ace is trumps, the fourth suit becomes trumps.
Mutation adds a random card from another pack each turn.
As should be obvious the average value of the cards will go up over time. And the average value of a mutation will be lower than the average value of the existing pack. And some of those mutations are going to be extremely useful especially when the conditions - i.e. the trump suit changes.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Craigmaddie, have you actually read any of Lenski's or Kimura's papers?
I seriously doubt if either of them would find much to agree with in the way you or your sources are misrepresenting their work as if it somehow disproved evolution.
FWIW I personally disagree with Kimura on a lot - I think he uses a confusing and misleading definition of "evolution" for a start and he seems to give too much importance to Haldanes's old idea of "genetic load" which I think is almost certainly wrong - though most biologists would disagree with me there I guess. But I have no real doubt that he believed that evolution actually occurs, and that its causes can be explained by ordinary natural processes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
The concept "The Vatican" is not the same as binding Church teaching. The quote about Pius XII ("when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans") is a misrepresentation of his views as in Humani Generis.
Humani Generis has the following to say:
quote:
5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
(And goes on to criticise Communism and Existentialism for misusing the ‘world is in continual evolution meme').
I take that as reading that the then Pope was acknowledging that (1) there is good evidence for evolution even though (2) that evidence was not compelling in 1950. He says that (3) evolution does not explain the origin of all things, and that (4) an extension of evolutionary doctrine from biological theory to cosmic law is a theological and philosophical error.
He revisits the theme later:
quote:
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church
Which I take as meaning (5) scientific enquiry into evolution is legitimate, and that (6) scientific enquiry into material human origins is legitimate, but that (7) it must be a fair and open-minded enquiry and (8) cannot under any circumstances be held to explain the origin of the soul and that (9) the authority of the Church trumps everything else.
I'd say he was being a little too conservative on (2), and would point out that there is at least a little tension between (7) and (8/9), but otherwise there's nothing there that would seriously hamper evolutionary theory. Indeed the Pope specifically allows and permits scientists to "weigh" and "judge" the case for or against evolution. I'm sure they're grateful.
I can quite understand a concerned Catholic opposing a claim supported by evolutionary arguments, to have dispensed with the need for a creator God or a spiritual dimension to human life, or of substituting its own novel cosmology against traditional Christian views of creation, fall and redemption, and all these I see Humani Generis trying to address. There's nothing there, though, that says that evolution itself is wrong, or contrary to Christian belief, and much to indicate that it is not.
Whatever your reasons for scepticism to evolution, you are going much, much further in that direction than any ‘infallible teaching of the Church' thus far cited.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let me see if I've understood your point. You're saying that over time the effects of any beneficial mutations must be drowned out by the effects of the near-neutral deleterious mutations.
If deleterious mutations are near neutral, then they're just not that deleterious.
You're right that if a deleterious mutation is near neutral then it is not that deleterious. But that is precisely the point - because the vast majority of deleterious mutations are not selected against they remain in the genome and bring about the ever-increasing genetic load of that genome. This the reason for the degeneration of the genome.
The two problems with the adult's fairytale of macro-evolution is that (1) there is no evidence that beneficial mutations can increase productive genetic information over time and (2) the genome of all species are actually degenerating.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The word 'information' is ambiguous in that it has at least one rigourous mathematical definition which does not quite agree with the way the word's used in natural language. For example, according to the mathematical definition if you rearrange the words of a message to create nonsense, you increase information. The concept of useful information doesn't have any kind of rigourous definition that I'm aware of.
I don't think anyone using natural language would accept the suggestion that to create nonsense is to increase information.
I just wanted to get back to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And before I posted you launched an accusation of "totalitarian thought police" - your own words. A tone argument that people are being mean to you by accusing you of dishonesty after you made implicit statements about honesty of almost every single practicing biologist in the world in the area they devote their life to and love, and explicit accusations of totalitarian thought police brings parables of motes and beams to mind.
Actually, my comment about the "totalitarian thought police" concerns the censures that exist in academia against dissent against Darwinism. Someone like Eugenia C. Scott springs immediately to mind. It had nothing to do with Croesian sarcasm or anything else on this thread.
Admittedly, I have to confess that I have been quite surprised by the ugly tone of this thread. But, on reflection, I understand that people can have a very great emotional investment in Darwinism and, so, shouldn't have been surprised. The comment from Louise was particularly crass.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, I think I did point out that unless you're careful it's easy to make a category mistake and so think that because universals or forms or information aren't material things they must therefore be non-material things. Which they are not.
Well, you are running against the law of excluded middle then. If a thing is not material then it must, by definition, be non-material.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
While it is theoretically possible that a random gene duplication might be beneficial, such a duplication would need to be expressed in the phenotype in a manner that causes the organism to be selected over another individual of that species that does not manifest that duplication in its phenotype.
I don't think this is right. All you need is for a gene duplication to not be very harmful to the organism's survival chances. Then the organism stands a fair chance of producing offspring, some or all (depending on what type of organism you're talking about) of which will also have the duplicated gene.
According to Haldane's Dilemma it takes about 300 generations to fix a beneficial random mutation. In the meantime that beneficial mutation is effectively drowned out by the overwhelming number of deleterious mutations that are not eliminated through natural selection.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Remember it's likely that this duplicated gene is not necessary for the organism's functioning, so mutations that stop the duplicated gene from working will probably not reduce the organism's likelihood of producing offspring. And when, by the odd chance in a million (or whatever), a mutation or series of mutations happen that produce a beneficial effect, evolution has occurred. The gene duplication in itself does not have to be beneficial at all, just not disastrous to the organism's survival chances.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
Kevin, let's get something clear about beneficial mutations. A mutation is defined as 'beneficial' if it brings about some benefit to the organism. Most commonly a beneficial mutation represents a useful degeneration of the genome. For example, the oft-cited example of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is due to beneficial mutations where there has been a loss of function i.e. a loss of genetic information. What we see is adaptation not macroevolution. The new strain of bacteria is invariably genetically poorer than the parent strain and has a selective disadvantage over the parent when the antiobiotic in question is no longer present.
[ 07. September 2011, 19:24: Message edited by: Craigmaddie ]
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
According to Haldane's Dilemma it takes about 300 generations to fix a beneficial random mutation. In the meantime that beneficial mutation is effectively drowned out by the overwhelming number of deleterious mutations that are not eliminated through natural selection.
That's simply not true, and neither is it relevant to anything we've been discussing here. I think either you misunderstand what its about, or maybe you are quoting someone who is mispreresenting it. But rather than go into that irrelevance are you going to explain some of the things or answer any of those questions? Its very difficult to carry on a debate with someone who resolutely refuses to reply but just carries on quoting from other irrelevant sources.
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
You're right that if a deleterious mutation is near neutral then it is not that deleterious. But that is precisely the point - because the vast majority of deleterious mutations are not selected against they remain in the genome and bring about the ever-increasing genetic load of that genome. This the reason for the degeneration of the genome.
In practice this doesn't happen in most real populations for all sorts of reasons. And we have observed animal populations such as flies for many hundreds of generations and bacterial populations for tens of thousands.
Incidentally even if it did happen it would make very little difference because organisms are in competition with each other. You don't need to run faster than the bear, you only need to run faster than your friends.
Yet again I'm wondering what it is that you don't understand about natural selection that makes you think these assertions are in some way arguments against it.
quote:
The two problems with the adult's fairytale of macro-evolution is that (1) there is no evidence that beneficial mutations can increase productive genetic information over time and (2) the genome of all species are actually degenerating.
Neither of those is true.
And please don't insult us by calling science "fairytales". This is Dead Horses, not Hell.
quote:
I don't think anyone using natural language would accept the suggestion that to create nonsense is to increase information.
As no-one is suggesting that, how is it relevant?
quote:
Someone like Eugenia C. Scott springs immediately to mind.
You are going to have to explain that. What has she done that makes you think "totalitarian thought police" is a remotely appropriate of her? It is insulting, untrue, and unneccesary.
quote:
Admittedly, I have to confess that I have been quite surprised by the ugly tone of this thread.
But most of the "ugliness" is coming from you! You are being quite insulting.
For example yiour very next line is extremly offensive, and I confess, makes me feel very angry and wonder what has happened to you to make you so unreasoning about this issue:
quote:
But, on reflection, I understand that people can have a very great emotional investment in Darwinism and, so, shouldn't have been surprised.
You seem to be conducting this thread as if there was no point in listening to what others contribute or replying to it because there is no need to take them seriously, their ideas cannot possibly be true. That is genuinely insulting. I mean seriously, I feel as if I am being insulted, because you are treating me and others here as people not worth listening to or replying. You seem to be starting to engage in some conversation of discussion then drop it. Its like being "cut" at a party. There are posters here who are routinely rude or aggressive but you aren't normally one of them. It feels odd.
[ 07. September 2011, 19:28: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Most commonly a beneficial mutation represents a useful degeneration of the genome.
So what? That in no way contradicts what Kevin said. Again, you would have to go into a lot more detail before we could understand wqhy you think that in any way disproves the fact of evolution by natural selection.
quote:
For example, the oft-cited example of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is due to beneficial mutations where there has been a loss of function i.e. a loss of genetic information.
That is simply untrue. There are all sorts of different ways bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance. Sometimes it is somethign being deleted, sometimes a new function for an old gene, very often its genes taken in from other bacteria. They aren't very much like us genetically and their evolution can proceed very differently.
quote:
What we see is adaptation not macroevolution.
Actually in bacteria adaptation, behaviour, growth, reproduction, and evolution aren't really separate categories.
quote:
The new strain of bacteria is invariably genetically poorer than the parent strain and has a selective disadvantage over the parent when the antiobiotic in question is no longer present.
That's a commonly held belief, and very plausible, though we now have some real observations of newly antibiotic-resistant strains that are not outcompeted by parental populations. So "invariably" isn't an accurate word. It rarely is in biology.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You're saying that over time the effects of any beneficial mutations must be drowned out by the effects of the near-neutral deleterious mutations.
The two problems with the adult's fairytale of macro-evolution is that (1) there is no evidence that beneficial mutations can increase productive genetic information over time and (2) the genome of all species are actually degenerating.
Let me repeat: you need to tell us how you're using the words 'productive genetic information', and what you mean by saying that genomes are 'degenerating'. 'Degenerating' in what sense: producing more non-viable offspring? But that would be selected against.
If a mutation is never selected against, what do you mean by calling it 'degenerate' or 'deleterious'?
What makes 'productive genetic information' 'productive' and what do we gain by referring to it as information?
quote:
quote:
Also, I think I did point out that unless you're careful it's easy to make a category mistake and so think that because universals or forms or information aren't material things they must therefore be non-material things. Which they are not.
Well, you are running against the law of excluded middle then. If a thing is not material then it must, by definition, be non-material.
If a thing is not material then it is a non-material thing. But forms, information, etc are not things, and therefore are not non-material things.
quote:
I don't think anyone using natural language would accept the suggestion that to create nonsense is to increase information.
I don't think anyone thoughtful using natural language would accept the suggestion that the genome literally contains information.
From my dictionary (Collins):
Information n.
1. knowledge acquired through experience or study.
2. knowledge of specific and timely events or situations; news.
3. act of informing; condition of being informed
(omit tourist and criminal meanings)
6. Comp results derived from processing of data according to programmed instructions.
See online dictionary.
In which sense are you using the word? If you're using the word metaphorically, you need to be clear about how the metaphor matches up with what you're describing with the metaphor.
On the mathematical vs natural language definitions of information: With a bit of effort and guesswork someone could reconstruct the vowels missing from the following string: Nnsns cntns mr nfrmtn thn pln prs snc t rqrs mr ffrt t dscrb t. You couldn't reconstruct the same string of letters turned into a nonsense anagram. That means that the nonsense string contains less redundant information, and therefore more information overall according to the mathematical definition.
If you're not using any kind of technical definition of information, your argument simply isn't tight enough to establish what can and can't happen.
quote:
In the meantime that beneficial mutation is effectively drowned out by the overwhelming number of deleterious mutations that are not eliminated through natural selection.
If they're not being eliminated through natural selection, then they don't drown out the beneficial mutation.
quote:
Most commonly a beneficial mutation represents a useful degeneration of the genome. For example, the oft-cited example of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is due to beneficial mutations where there has been a loss of function i.e. a loss of genetic information. What we see is adaptation not macroevolution. The new strain of bacteria is invariably genetically poorer than the parent strain and has a selective disadvantage over the parent when the antiobiotic in question is no longer present.
I do not see what difference you think that there is between 'macro'evolution and adaptation. Evolution just is adaptation. Birds have a selective disadvantage over fish in cases where the birds need to breathe underwater.
You say that there's loss of function. Indeed. No organism can be good at everything. A gain in function in one area is usually compensated for by a loss of function in other areas. It is not at all clear that this is meaningfully described as 'loss of genetic information'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
... Admittedly, I have to confess that I have been quite surprised by the ugly tone of this thread. But, on reflection, I understand that people can have a very great emotional investment in Darwinism and, so, shouldn't have been surprised. The comment from Louise was particularly crass.
"Adult's fairytale of macro-evolution"? "Emotional investment in Darwinism"? Is that the ugly tone you are referring to?
I'll say it again: emotions are running high because of the particular styles of argument being employed: straw men (e.g. evolution is random); refusal to engage with contrary evidence, whether scientific or religious; repeated assertions without evidence; and continued use of ambiguous or meaningless terminology. It's incredibly frustrating.
I actually have a degree in science, so one could claim I am "emotionally invested". You know what I'm invested in? I'm invested in the integrity of science, which has transformed and improved our lives in immeasurable ways. We all live our lives every day assuming that science works, whether it's mechanics, or optics, or chemistry, or, OMG, biology. I live in a culture that is becoming less and less informed and critical about science - we see this in the multiple denial movements active today, as well as other phenomena such as urban legends - at a time when our planet needs us to make some very hard decisions which will determine the fate of our civilization and possibly the human race. Thankfully, the evolution denialists are pretty harmless (compared to e.g. climate-change denialists). They can just keep going "la-la-la" while they survive and thrive thanks to applications of multiple scientific theories, including evolution. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let me see if I've understood your point. You're saying that over time the effects of any beneficial mutations must be drowned out by the effects of the near-neutral deleterious mutations.
If deleterious mutations are near neutral, then they're just not that deleterious.
You're right that if a deleterious mutation is near neutral then it is not that deleterious. But that is precisely the point - because the vast majority of deleterious mutations are not selected against they remain in the genome and bring about the ever-increasing genetic load of that genome. This the reason for the degeneration of the genome.
No. If a mutation is not selected against, it's not deleterious. You've just described a neutral mutation.
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
The two problems with the adult's fairytale of macro-evolution is that (1) there is no evidence that beneficial mutations can increase productive genetic information over time and (2) the genome of all species are actually degenerating.
Constant repetition is not the same as constructing an argument or producing evidence. As near as I can tell you seem to think that simply repeating this mantra in response to any evidence presented to the contrary is sufficient refutation. It's a week later and I'm still waiting for your thoughts on Lenski's work, which clearly shows the contingent evolution of a new trait. So far all you've said can be summarized as "nuh uh".
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Actually, my comment about the "totalitarian thought police" concerns the censures that exist in academia against dissent against Darwinism. Someone like Eugenia C. Scott springs immediately to mind. It had nothing to do with Croesian sarcasm or anything else on this thread.
Admittedly, I have to confess that I have been quite surprised by the ugly tone of this thread. But, on reflection, I understand that people can have a very great emotional investment in Darwinism and, so, shouldn't have been surprised. The comment from Louise was particularly crass.
You have found time, however, to graciously lecture us on decorum and polite discourse, and to imply that Eugenie Scott feeds Creationist's faces to rats.
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Kevin, let's get something clear about beneficial mutations. A mutation is defined as 'beneficial' if it brings about some benefit to the organism. Most commonly a beneficial mutation represents a useful degeneration of the genome. For example, the oft-cited example of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is due to beneficial mutations where there has been a loss of function i.e. a loss of genetic information. What we see is adaptation not macroevolution. The new strain of bacteria is invariably genetically poorer than the parent strain and has a selective disadvantage over the parent when the antiobiotic in question is no longer present.
Going back to my also unaddressed example from two weeks ago, which would represent a "degeneration", the insertion of the cytosine in the original example, or a later mutation that omits it again? In short, you seem to be defining any change as a "degeneration" even if it's something helpful or useful to the organism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Admittedly, I have to confess that I have been quite surprised by the ugly tone of this thread. But, on reflection, I understand that people can have a very great emotional investment in Darwinism and, so, shouldn't have been surprised. The comment from Louise was particularly crass.
I see, so all these wonderful and knowledgeable people who've been posting round the boards about scientific issues for years don't actually know anything, they're just so emotional, poor dears. Nothing crass about that comment and its smear on a number of intelligent posters who show a consistently excellent grasp of these subjects...
It must be lovely, utterly lovely, to be able to read and speculate about Genesis without needing to think about how it has been used for thousands of years against women and gay people. It was one of the major teats that fed medieval misogyny, and the warrant, used over and over again in history, for subjecting intelligent women to a Procrustean bed of enforced submission, infantilisation and deprivation of rights in law. For gay people it has been used as a fundamental means of de-legitimising their most intimate relationships. It's no accident that there's a significant overlap in the Western world between the most zealous enemies of women's rights and gay rights and people who want to fly in the face of the huge range of evidence which has undermined Genesis as a factual story with scientific implications.
One of the side effects of the huge and varied range of scientific discoveries which undermined the use of Genesis as a biological authority, was that it became easier for us to fight back, to tell people that 'No, this is not how human society should be'
Just as anti-vaccine propaganda is bad science and also has human victims - the children who die or fall seriously ill when their parents are misled by the pseudoscientists, so anti-evolutionary creationism is not just a harmless hobby. Just as anti-vax people who have grown up with modern sanitation and vaccinations have forgotten the severity of the diseases they prevent, so some people who've grown up in societies where the debunking of Genesis as science has helped to free women and gay people, are seemingly oblivious of the cruel price that could be paid by other people, if they managed to get their anti-scientific falsehoods propagated and taken seriously again.
I'm here to remind you that other people ultimately pay the costs of such forays into bad science. People often think that because something seems to them to buttress their faith, to make its internal logic seem more pleasing and more sure to them, that it should trump all scientific findings that the external world does not follow their inner logic.
In many cases this is, as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would put it 'mostly harmless', but it certainly isn't harmless, when it comes to falsely elevating texts which are used to show that heterosexual male supremacy is God-given, that women are the root of human misery and that only heterosexual relationships are valid. When people spit in the face of the hundreds of thousands of dedicated scholars whose work has helped strike off those chains, then they spit in my face.
Anyway, how dare I be so crass, I'd better get back to bringing forth children in pain and being ruled over by my husband like the good Non-Darwinian Science Text-book says I should...
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
You're right that if a deleterious mutation is near neutral then it is not that deleterious.
It is not that deleterious in the circumstance that is being tested for. Such traits are assessed only in that condition. And when conditions change, traits that had been horrible can become extremely useful or vise-versa (see sickle cell anemia for something that's useful in a malarial country and pretty deleterious in a country without malaria).
quote:
But that is precisely the point - because the vast majority of deleterious mutations are not selected against they remain in the genome and bring about the ever-increasing genetic load of that genome. This the reason for the degeneration of the genome.
Most species are adapted for the environment they are in. But environments change over time and what was the best evolutionary combination is often not after the environment has shifted. A textbook example of this is the Peppered Moth - the dark colouring is a slightly deleterious mutation in the original environment but an extremely useful one once the environment shifts. However because it is a slightly deleterious mutation, you would term it "degeneration of the genome". Despite it being anything but deleterious in a different environment. And that's what the benefit of a lot of these slightly deleterious mutations are. The potential to adapt to different niches; most species in a stable environment are adapted to that environment well enough to out-produce everyone else. But if the peppered moth had a genome that didn't "degenerate" then it's possible the species would have been dead meat in the polluted environment.
quote:
The two problems with the adult's fairytale of macro-evolution is that (1) there is no evidence that beneficial mutations can increase productive genetic information over time and
Croesus has given you a case where beneficial genetic mutations have increased productive genetic information over time. You now say that there is no evidence that beneficial mutations can increase productive genetic information over time. Evidence has been presented right on this very thread not just that they can, but that they have. And that they have observably. So when you make statements like the above either you are dishonestly cherry picking the thread, or you are lying, or you are incapable of understanding the evidence presented on this thread. Any other possibility except an outright accusation of lying against Croesus and the scientists he linked and every other case (including the theoretical ones, which are sufficient to show "can") would mean that you wouldn't make as stupid a statement as to say that there is "no evidence".
quote:
(2) the genome of all species are actually degenerating.
You seem to be back on your Platonist kick, wanting one pair of ideal representatives of each species and cloning perfectly from there. I've illustrated above a case where a slightly deleterious mutation in one environment made the species much stronger when the environment changed. If things like that are what you mean by "degenerating" - actively more able to handle different environments - then we have different views.
And for the record your misunderstanding here is the same trap the 1930s eugenicists fell into. Narrow is not good. Narrow leaves you fit for only a narrow range of environments. Diverse means the species can mould into a whole set of nooks and crannies as different things are looked for in different places.
quote:
I don't think anyone using natural language would accept the suggestion that to create nonsense is to increase information.
And here you are assuming that what is created is nonsense. It often is. But not always.
quote:
Actually, my comment about the "totalitarian thought police" concerns the censures that exist in academia against dissent against Darwinism.
That's because scientific academia* has a strong dislike for people who are more full of shit than used colostomy bags. And a belief in creationism (note not "dissent against Darwinism") ranks up there with Holocaust Denial. The evidence for evolution is of that sort of strength, the dissenters are repeating points that have been debunked as hard, and are advocating for things that are as dangerous (scrapping large chunks of modern medicine).
In science there are right and wrong answers. And testable methods of determining which is which. If you proceed to peddle something that's wrong after the evidence is shown to go against you you'll be laughed at. This isn't totalitarian thought police. It's acceptance of reality.
quote:
Admittedly, I have to confess that I have been quite surprised by the ugly tone of this thread.
As I have pointed out, and you are doing your level best not to take onboard, you are the one dragging matters into the gutter.
quote:
But, on reflection, I understand that people can have a very great emotional investment in Darwinism and, so, shouldn't have been surprised. The comment from Louise was particularly crass.
And still politer than you have managed.
The emotional investment is one in the truth rather than lies. It's one in testable theories rather than half baked superstition. It's one in being able to adapt to new information (as you have on thermodynamics) rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalalala I can't hear you" (as you have on Croesus' example of demonstrable evolution). The world is a beautiful and magical place. And you are turning your back on it for some caricature of warmed over platonist philosophy filtered through a Catholic lens. And then have the gall to accuse others of having totalitarian thought police. And other accusations of conspiracies.
* There are branches of the academic establishment where I doubt this is the case - notably economics.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
