Degeneration > evolution

[Saviourmachine]

Important assumption:
- Mutations are responsible for evolution.

Hypothesis: degeneration > evolution

There is no direction to evolution, I heard here, so you can say that devolution/degeneration is another word for evolution. Or in the mathematical way: degeneration = evolution.

1. The enzyme-encoding genome as a lossless system

I’m not suggesting that a random process can’t favour an increase in information. No! common information theory says that random datasamples contain more information than any other set of samples. But this works fine only within lossy systems. In a lossless context, like a text document, you’re damaging the information on the higher level of words!
The genome contains a lossless (for enzymes encoding) part and a lossy part (not encoding for enzymes, and with no known meaning). It’s like a text document with a picture embedded. The part we are interested in is the enzyme encoding part: the lossless system. So we have to be aware of the level of words/enzymes.

2. Influences of mutations on the enzyme level is different

There are three possibilities that a DNA chain will code for another sequence of enzymes (due to mutations). First, mutations can let a chain code for a new enzyme, or a range of new enzymes. Second, mutations can change the code that way that a new enzyme replaces an old one. Third, mutations can damage the information for an existing enzyme so that it’s not possible to form it, or a mutated one, anymore. I would like to call the first two options evolution and the third one degeneration. In the first case there is some genetic information added on the enzyme level, in the last case the genetic information on the enzyme level decreases.

3. A decrease in information on enzyme level results in a decrease in information on gene level.

When a DNA chain isn’t encoding for an enzyme anymore, the information it contains is useless with respect to nature. It’s decomposing fast because the mutations don’t have any influence on the to be decoded enzymes.

4. There are more degenerating than evolutioning mutations

In the analogy of a text document, if you’re substituting a letter with another (or any other transmutation you may think of) it’s more likely to damage a word than to create a new one. I suppose that the same is true in genetics in regard to nucleotides and encoding chains.

5. Nature doesn’t prefer evolution above devolution

The keyword in nature is adaption. It makes no sence that a mutation is due to ‘evolution’ or ‘devolution’ for nature. It sees a white ermine, not that its colourloss is due to ‘evolution’ or ‘devolution’. So, whatever has happened with genetic information (additions or damages), it doesn’t interest nature at all. Natural selection doesn't make any difference!

6. Degeneration > evolution

So, I want to claim that degeneration occurs on a higher speed then evolution.

Consequences
- Beings on the end (in regard to time) of an evolution line has a smaller gene pool
- If this is not the case then evolution from ancient unicellular live to current live isn’t possible!
- If this is not the case then evolution from Noah’s arc’s animals to current live isn’t possible!

To continue with...
- What’s the share in the story of "DNA not encoding for enzymes"?
- Are there other biological mechanisms than mutations in the game?

 

[bevets]

You must be lost -- only Americans are supposed to be creationists...

 

[Arikay]

You forgot about natural selection, the mechanism that changes evolution from a random proccess to a system that can create complexity.

Evolution has no dirrection, that is true, there is no final goal and it does not drive to make things more complex. However, it does make things more complex if that complexity allows the animal to be better adapted to the environment and gives it an advantage, Natural selection.

Actually in mutations there are more neutral mutations than anything else, matter of fact most people contain around 1-5 mutations in their body, yet they never know it because most of the time these mutations are neutral. Sometimes they are harmfull and sometimes they are helpfull, it all depends on the evironment. Sicle cell anemia is a good example. In a normal city, sicle cell anemia is harmful, but in an area where malaria runs rampant, Sicle cells anemias ability to protect the person from malaria can actually increase their life. Thus often the environment chooses whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful, natural selection takes over and selects the beneficial over the harmful, thus over time a population will accumulate many beneficial mutations.

 

[Saviourmachine]

Natural selection = point 5. I couldn't find the exact word.

Natural selection doesn't prefer evolution of the first case above evolution of the second case.

 

[Arikay]

point 5 should be up in the top. Evolution is not just mutation but also natural selection.

In point 4 you made the link that harmful mutations = degeneration thus it would be assumed that beneficial mutations = evolution. Since Natural selection favors beneficial mutations, point 4 says that natural selection favors evolution over degeneration.

 

[Saviourmachine]

I'm not talking about harmful mutations, but of mutations that decrease the amount of enzymes, thats all!

I'm not suggesting that there are no beneficial mutations!

 

[Arikay]

Ok, so then the analogy,
"In the analogy of a text document, if you’re substituting a letter with another (or any other transmutation you may think of) it’s most likely to damage a word than to create a new one."

Doesn't work since you said that a letter substitution would most likely damage a word, and damage would suggest something harmful.

I'm not talking about harmful mutations, but of mutations that decrease the amount of enzymes, thats all!

 

[Saviourmachine]

Yes, I was searching for another word, but I didn't find one. So I should have said that this substitution should normally decrease the letter sequences that decode for english words by one.

I beg you pardon, if I am not using the right words.

 

[Arikay]

Ah, i think I understand.

What you mean is that decrease in information is more common than an increase in information.

Im curious, what suggests that the lose of genetic information is more likely to give a beneficial mutation than an increase of genetic information?

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Hey Saviormachine,

Do you have anything you can cite to support your thesis?

 

[SirKenin]

Ever notice how evolutionists quote the same 3-5 examples of mutations, over and over and over again?

 

[Arikay]

for me its because ive only researched a couple, for different reasons. I dont really like to quote things without researching them, so you get the same examples over and over from me, its also because they work.
I have a couple large lists that I stole from lucaspa, but I haven't finished researching most of them, so I dont want to use them yet.

 

[shenzhou]

If you're bored of those examples you might want to check out my thread on the evolution of new genetic information:

http://www.christianforums.com/t81701

But then again if a creationist makes an assertion such as 'there are no beneficial mutations' or 'natural processes don't increase genetic information' surely just one example of these things happening would demonstrate the statements to be false?

 

[SirKenin]

for me its because ive only researched a couple, for different reasons. I dont really like to quote things without researching them, so you get the same examples over and over from me, its also because they work.
I have a couple large lists that I stole from lucaspa, but I haven't finished researching most of them, so I dont want to use them yet.

Oh, I have no doubt. You are a very smart fellow. I read your posts and admire the knowledge and understanding that you exhibit in the subject and the calm way you generally approach it. It far exceeds mine, as is easily ascertainable. You and several others on here. I've learned a lot, and come a long way from my initial literalist interpretations and misunderstandings

It's no big deal. I noticed that was happening and found it somewhat odd. It was of no real concern, although I can certainly understand why you prefer to, according to your explanation.

 

[Arikay]

I really should do some research on them though, so I can get a more diverse set of examples.

 

[Split Rock]

One type of mutation that was not mentioned in the original post is gene duplication. If a gene is duplicated the new copy can evolve a new or adjusted function without the loss of the original function (for the organism). Many enzymes are part of large gene families whose members often differ from each other only slightly in their coded sequence (a good example of this is pectinesterase in plants). In such cases information is increased, not decreased.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Ever notice how evolutionists quote the same 3-5 examples of mutations, over and over and over again?

My favorite pet is the nylon eating bacteria. Simply because it is a great, simple to understand, well documented, naturally occurring response to an unnatural material. The only possible counter to it is that a deity or aliens are introducing new species right under our noses, which nobody without a tin foil hat would say.

There are others, but to me, this is the one that is so obvious and simple that you have to try to misunderstand it to not see how mutations can be beneficial.

 

[SirKenin]

My favorite pet is the nylon eating bacteria. Simply because it is a great, simple to understand, well documented, naturally occurring response to an unnatural material. The only possible counter to it is that a deity or aliens are introducing new species right under our noses, which nobody without a tin foil hat would say.

There are others, but to me, this is the one that is so obvious and simple that you have to try to misunderstand it to not see how mutations can be beneficial.

Yes, I remember hearing that one a few times. That's very true.

 

[Jet Black]

The key to evolution is natural selection. Natural selection selects for the phenotypes that are the best suited to surviving and breeding and passing on their genotypes to the next generation. This can be either an increase or a decrease in the number of genes. It really does not matter. So the problem with the OP is that is makes the implicit assumption that the organisms with a "degenerated" genotpe are somehow phenotypically more fit than those with the more complex phenotype.

 

[Jet Black]

Ever notice how evolutionists quote the same 3-5 examples of mutations, over and over and over again?

probably because we hear the same 3-5 creationist arguments over and over and over again