A code needs a coder.

[In situ]

Biologos mentioned Stephen Meyers...They also asked if the genetic code is really a code.
Here's a 3 1/2 min long video that Meyers did to show one of the processes in the

Anything Mayer claims, regarding the origin of life, can be safely ignored. Meyer works for the Dishonesty Institute, which mission is to tell people fantastic stories they want to here. Meyer is always talking nonsense and says absolutely nothing of value about anything - beside for telling people of beliefs what they want to here.

If you been watching that video you been wasting 3.5 hour of your life listen to ignorant nonsense and fabrications - 3.5 hours you instead could had used to actually educate yourself.

What is in that video is what Meyer talked about ~10 years ago and promised a lot of new interesting ID research will be done. Well, 10 years has past and he still talks about the very same nonsense he did back then. (Research = write a book - The Signature in the Cell - filled with nonsense, fabrications and outright lies).

If you want a review of Meyer from a person that actually know what they are talking about, check out this:

 

[-57]

I'm not sure how my post could possibly confuse you.

It's not a code (in the sense of the C++ code that results in MS Excel, for example), because in reality it is actually just a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction.

Not unlike any other molecule engaged in a chemical reaction.

It's a code that can be read and the information used to assemble organelle.

 

[-57]

Do we have an example of mutations which lead to fixation?
On human? On non-human?

Or, this is a "conceptual" understanding after all?

I would ask...Do we have an example of mutations that increase the information coded in DNA which lead to fixation?
A blind cave fish might qualify...but there is a loss of information in the DNA for making their eyes.

 

[-57]

No. It's the actual answer.

You asked how this process unfolds considering beneficial mutations are rare.
The answer is: natural selection.

It keeps the good, discards the bad and doesn't care about the neutral.
This is how stability is maintained and adaption is guaranteed.
This is how species don't go extinct after 5 generations of bad mutations.

Because those with the bad mutations tend to not survive / reproduce.
While those with good mutations tend to survive / reproduce more frequently.

Natural selection.

It's not hard.

As I said...coloring book answer.

Just for the record, what percentage of mutations are beneficial? A ballpark answer is OK.

 

[loveofourlord]

How did a process involving random mutations where the extremely rare random mutation that is considered as beneficial create such a complex code?

Because the process to get it to RNA is simple chemistry, from there it has endless time to get more complicated.

Remember if the process that creates RNA can happen 300 times every second in a 1 inch square area, then you can get billions and billions of attempts a second across the entire planet.

 

[Jimmy D]

As I said...coloring book answer.

Just for the record, what percentage of mutations are beneficial? A ballpark answer is OK.

This sort of behaviour is why you aren't taken seriously. Your question has been answered before yet you keep repeating it:

sfs:

Let's see. . . We've found evidence for (very) roughly 1000 selective sweeps in modern human populations. The tests for selection that were used are sensitive to selection occurring in the last ~20,000 years. Call it 800 selective sweeps in 800 generations, representing 800 new beneficial mutations. Most beneficial mutations are lost early, though, so the actual number will be much higher. If the average beneficial mutation has a selective advantage of 0.1%, then approximately 1 in 500 of them will reach high enough frequency to be detected, which gives 500 beneficial mutations per generation. If the human population was two million during this period, and there are 75 new mutations per birth, then that's 1 beneficial mutation out of every 300,000 new mutations -- pretty close to my previous estimate. Since our tests for selection are far from perfect at detecting it, the actual number would be higher.

If you want more than a 'coloring book' answer why not go and educate yourself by reading first hand scientific papers (rather than creationist propaganda) or demanding people spoon feed you on here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol Get answers? Your clear intention is to not give answers.

If my intentions was not to give you answers, I'ld just not reply to your posts.
I'ld like to provide you with answers, but I need to understand your question before I can do that. Which is why I'm asking for clarification.

Clearly, you have no intention on providing that clarification - or you simply aren't able to.

That's to bad, but don't blame your unwillingness or inability to clarify your very own qeustions on us....

After all that, you can't honestly think I'm going to continue to engage with this nonsense?

It's YOUR nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a code that can be read and the information used to assemble organelle.

See, that's another unclever play on words, to make it "seem" to be a certain way, while in reality, it's nothing like that.

There is no actual "reading" going on, at any point.
It's just a chemical reaction, like any other chemical reaction, albeit a complex one.

It's a deterministic process, like any other chemical reaction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would ask...Do we have an example of mutations that increase the information coded in DNA which lead to fixation?

Yes.

A blind cave fish might qualify...but there is a loss of information in the DNA for making their eyes.

That makes no sense.
Fish being trapped in a dark cave, are better off with non-functioning eyes.
There eyes are useless anyway, since there is no light.

So having functioning eyes simply is a waste of energy and resources.

In any case, this is the point where you will be asked to explain what exactly it is that you mean with an "increase" or "decrease" in "information", concerning DNA.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said...coloring book answer.

No, it's the actual answer.
Selection is how the good lives on, while the bad is discarded and the neutral is irrelevant.

Just for the record, what percentage of mutations are beneficial? A ballpark answer is OK.

I don't think you can put a number on that, as it is highly dependend on circumstances like habitat, climate, niche and other environmental factors.

What is beneficial in situation A, might be very detrimental in situation B.

A grizzly bear in the woods having a mutation that changes pigmentation of the fur to white, will be deterimental, as it would stand out big time in contrast with the forrest background, which isn't exactly helpfull while hunting. But in snowy regions, it provides very good camouflage.

If you want actual estimated averages, I guess google might be helpfull. I don't have any numbers and I don't consider it necessary either.

Evolution doesn't require "many" beneficial mutations anyhow.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...A blind cave fish might qualify...but there is a loss of information in the DNA for making their eyes.

Not necessarily; it may simply be due to the regulator for the particular genes involved in eye development during embryogenesis being switched off, or not being triggered. It's quite possible that this could be caused by an addition of information, for example, a duplication error that disables the regulator.

It's important to be clear precisely what you mean by information and complexity in this kind of context, because the most widely used information theories, Shannon information theory and Kolmogorov complexity theory, both use 'bits' as their units of information, and both can be relevant in genetics, but they have different semantics; in brief, Shannon information deals with the minimum number of bits required to transmit a message, and Kolmogorov complexity deals with the minimum number of bits from which a message can be reconstructed (see Shannon Information & Kolmogorov Complexity).

It's quite reasonable to say that any duplication error increases information content (by providing more bits), and adds complexity (by adding random variation). This may not be the kind of information or complexity metric you wish to use, hence the need to be specific.

 

[-57]

Because the process to get it to RNA is simple chemistry, from there it has endless time to get more complicated.

Remember if the process that creates RNA can happen 300 times every second in a 1 inch square area, then you can get billions and billions of attempts a second across the entire planet.

Big if.

 

[-57]

This sort of behaviour is why you aren't taken seriously. Your question has been answered before yet you keep repeating it:

sfs:

Let's see. . . We've found evidence for (very) roughly 1000 selective sweeps in modern human populations. The tests for selection that were used are sensitive to selection occurring in the last ~20,000 years. Call it 800 selective sweeps in 800 generations, representing 800 new beneficial mutations. Most beneficial mutations are lost early, though, so the actual number will be much higher. If the average beneficial mutation has a selective advantage of 0.1%, then approximately 1 in 500 of them will reach high enough frequency to be detected, which gives 500 beneficial mutations per generation. If the human population was two million during this period, and there are 75 new mutations per birth, then that's 1 beneficial mutation out of every 300,000 new mutations -- pretty close to my previous estimate. Since our tests for selection are far from perfect at detecting it, the actual number would be higher.

If you want more than a 'coloring book' answer why not go and educate yourself by reading first hand scientific papers (rather than creationist propaganda) or demanding people spoon feed you on here.

Reference please.

 

[-57]

See, that's another unclever play on words, to make it "seem" to be a certain way, while in reality, it's nothing like that.

There is no actual "reading" going on, at any point.
It's just a chemical reaction, like any other chemical reaction, albeit a complex one.

It's a deterministic process, like any other chemical reaction.

The chemical reaction is how the code is being read...copied...and then used to construct something..that has the ability to construct something else. Yes it is complex. So complex it could not have arrived by chance mutations.

 

[-57]

Yes.



That makes no sense.
Fish being trapped in a dark cave, are better off with non-functioning eyes.
There eyes are useless anyway, since there is no light.

So having functioning eyes simply is a waste of energy and resources.

In any case, this is the point where you will be asked to explain what exactly it is that you mean with an "increase" or "decrease" in "information", concerning DNA.

If you put the fish in a pond outside of the cave...it's progeny will not re-evolve eyes. The information is lost. de-evolved.

 

[-57]

No, it's the actual answer.
Selection is how the good lives on, while the bad is discarded and the neutral is irrelevant.



I don't think you can put a number on that, as it is highly dependend on circumstances like habitat, climate, niche and other environmental factors.

What is beneficial in situation A, might be very detrimental in situation B.

A grizzly bear in the woods having a mutation that changes pigmentation of the fur to white, will be deterimental, as it would stand out big time in contrast with the forrest background, which isn't exactly helpfull while hunting. But in snowy regions, it provides very good camouflage.

If you want actual estimated averages, I guess google might be helpfull. I don't have any numbers and I don't consider it necessary either.

Evolution doesn't require "many" beneficial mutations anyhow.

Are you saying evolving something like the dolphins echo-location doesn't require many mutations?

 

[-57]

Not necessarily; it may simply be due to the regulator for the particular genes involved in eye development during embryogenesis being switched off, or not being triggered. It's quite possible that this could be caused by an addition of information, for example, a duplication error that disables the regulator.

It's important to be clear precisely what you mean by information and complexity in this kind of context, because the most widely used information theories, Shannon information theory and Kolmogorov complexity theory, both use 'bits' as their units of information, and both can be relevant in genetics, but they have different semantics; in brief, Shannon information deals with the minimum number of bits required to transmit a message, and Kolmogorov complexity deals with the minimum number of bits from which a message can be reconstructed (see Shannon Information & Kolmogorov Complexity).

It's quite reasonable to say that any duplication error increases information content (by providing more bits), and adds complexity (by adding random variation). This may not be the kind of information or complexity metric you wish to use, hence the need to be specific.

Quite a non-answer..."it may simply be due to"
Well, is it due to it or not?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Quite a non-answer..."it may simply be due to"
Well, is it due to it or not?

I don't know; there are many creatures who've independently lost their eyesight having gone subterranean, and there are many ways that could happen genetically, just as there are many creatures that evolved eyes independently and did so in different ways.

I'm pointing out that your assertion that there's a loss of information in the DNA is not necessarily the case.

But if you have some analysis of the DNA of such a creature to back up your assertion, by all means present it.

 

[-57]

I don't know; there are many creatures who've independently lost their eyesight having gone subterranean, and there are many ways that could happen genetically, just as there are many creatures that evolved eyes independently and did so in different ways.

I'm pointing out that your assertion that there's a loss of information in the DNA is not necessarily the case.

But if you have some analysis of the DNA of such a creature to back up your assertion, by all means present it.

What happend is they have gone subterranean...a mutation occured which stripped away the ability to form an eye. Big deal. They didn't need it.

Just for the record, there are NOT many creatures that evolved eyes independently. This is an evo-hoax that you can't support. Sheeze, the odds of it happening once is impossible...due to the so-called beneficial mutations needing to occur in just the right place at just the right time...time and time again...and you said MANY times? Care to prove it or retract your statement?

 

[-57]

I'm still waiting for a code that required no code maker.

...Evos, any suggestions?