 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evolution, Creation, and Theism
|
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. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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"? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) 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
