Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

[reconciliation]

That is not what I said. You are bearing false witness. You are lying.

So you must think geneticists could never agree with other scientists on this subject? If you admit there are scientists who know these things and don't believe in increase in information through mutations, so how can you think that any geneticist couldn't do that? You must then suppose that there are no geneticist in AiG for example since this is one of the most usual arguments AiG uses.

Really. Hmmm an 18 year old is telling me that I am ignorant about matters genetic, despite my degree with Honours in Genetics and the fact that I am currently working with one of the leading functional genomics experts in Europe in order to obtain my PhD. In genetics. Hmmmm. Interesting.

I cannot still believe your claim that no geneticist would question informational increase. If you are wrong here, you must be either lying or you are ignorant.

 

[h2whoa]

I cannot still believe your claim that no geneticist would question informational increase. If you are wrong here, you must be either lying or you are ignorant.

No geneticist would question it because it is known to exist. Did you read my post? Did you look at my sources? It is not hypothesised. It is seen.

It's like asking if any astrophysicists deny that stars are big balls of burning gas.

I don't think that you are in a position to accuse me of being wrong. I have shown, quite clearly that increase mutations occur.

Only an idiot would fail to see that.

I also fail to see how an IT professors views on genetics are of more weight than geneticists views on genetics.

I am not wrong on this. I have demonstrated quite clearly that it is fact that there are mutations that increase "information".

I can't help it though if you continue to behave in this disgraceful manner.

h2

 

[h2whoa]

P.S. I don't think you want to start an argument about ignorance.

P.P.S. Is your name meant to be ironic?

 

[reconciliation]

No geneticist would question it because it is known to exist. Did you read my post? Did you look at my sources? It is not hypothesised. It is seen. It's like asking if any astrophysicists deny that stars are big balls of burning gas.

No, it isn't. If it was, there wouldn't be so many scientists who reject that idea. If it really was seen, there couldn't be numerous specialists (whether many of them were just geneticists or not) who openly proclaim that there is no informational increase through mutations.

But this isn't the main problem between evolution and mutations. A far greater problem is that mutations (errors in copying) cause much more damage to DNA than they ever could produce supposed new information. So the total amount of information decreases anyway.

 

[h2whoa]

No, it isn't. If it was, there wouldn't be so many scientists who reject that idea. If it really was seen, there couldn't be numerous specialists (whether many of them were just geneticists or not) who openly proclaim that there is no informational increase through mutations.

But this isn't the main problem between evolution and mutations. A far greater problem is that mutations (errors in copying) cause much more damage to DNA than they ever could produce supposed new information. So the total amount of information decreases anyway.

What do you mean it isn't seen.

I gave you the sources. The research I'm working is looking at mutations in genes that could lead to neuropathologies. It really is seen. And there aren't "so many scientists" who reject the idea of increase-mutations. So far you have cited two who are not geneticists, not even biologists, who have misused the example of point-mutations. Wow. Looks like you're onto a winning streak.

Organisms that have deleterious mutations will die or generally be reproductively disadvantaged. Nobody argues with that. That is the whole concept of differential reproductive success.

It's like trying to guess a password, if you want an analogy. I could make 1 billion guesses at someones password and be wrong everytime. However, I have only have to guess it correctly on my billion-and-first go for the previous billion attempts to mean nothing. Fact is, with that one final attempt I've got the password and moved on. Same for mutations. All it takes is for a few beneficial mutations from the detritous of deleterious/neutral/silent mutations and viola, you can move on with the new mutation. All the other mutations in organisms don't count for anything once they have been lost from the gene pool.

h2

 

[Tomk80]

No, it isn't. If it was, there wouldn't be so many scientists who reject that idea. If it really was seen, there couldn't be numerous specialists (whether many of them were just geneticists or not) who openly proclaim that there is no informational increase through mutations.

But this isn't the main problem between evolution and mutations. A far greater problem is that mutations (errors in copying) cause much more damage to DNA than they ever could produce supposed new information. So the total amount of information decreases anyway.

Reality check for reconciliation:
1. If you are saying that there are many geneticists that question genetics, why do you cite professors in information theory (dr. Spetner, not a geneticist) and dr. Gitt (also not a geneticist)?
2. Are you going to respond to the post made by project2501 where he said that whether mutations increase information depends on your definition of information?
3. Are you going to respond to the examples given by H2? You are saying he is in error without addressing his sources in which information increases by genetics are shown. That is disinginuous at best.

So far you have not backed up your claims and have ignored the arguments put forward by your debate opponents. If you want to be shown right, you'll have to address their claims and back up your position. So far, you haven't done either of the two.

 

[caravelair]

No, it isn't. If it was, there wouldn't be so many scientists who reject that idea. If it really was seen, there couldn't be numerous specialists (whether many of them were just geneticists or not) who openly proclaim that there is no informational increase through mutations.

i don't believe there are many scientists who reject that idea.

But this isn't the main problem between evolution and mutations. A far greater problem is that mutations (errors in copying) cause much more damage to DNA than they ever could produce supposed new information. So the total amount of information decreases anyway.

please provide some evidence that this is a case. i am looking forward to seeing your statistical analysis of mutations that shows the percentages which increase and decrease information.

we have many examples of mutations that increase information. those who believe it is impossible are merely turning a blind eye to the abundant evidence that they are wrong. see my essay about this topic on this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1147626-how-is-genetic-code-added.html

 

[artybloke]

detritous of deleterious/neutral/silent mutations and viola

The Spelling Bee is in

'detritus', 'voila'

The Spelling Bee has left the building.

Carry on.

 

[reconciliation]

It's like trying to guess a password, if you want an analogy. I could make 1 billion guesses at someones password and be wrong everytime. However, I have only have to guess it correctly on my billion-and-first go for the previous billion attempts to mean nothing. Fact is, with that one final attempt I've got the password and moved on. Same for mutations. All it takes is for a few beneficial mutations from the detritous of deleterious/neutral/silent mutations and viola, you can move on with the new mutation. All the other mutations in organisms don't count for anything once they have been lost from the gene pool.

I'm not geneticist but I think there is one significant mistake in your analogy. Mutations are random, right? So let's think you guessed right on your billion-and-first attempt (that kind of number of attempts would require very long time periods, wouldn't it). But if there were all those attempts and then you finally succeeded, what would happen after it? Could you then move on? I think you couldn't. The next thing you would do would probably take you back to the previous level. If you gained something for a moment, you would anyway lose it through those copying mistakes in the future. So your success on your billion-and-first attempt would become totally useless and you were to start again from your starting point. In addition to this, I think you are overestimating the efficiency of natural selection: all damaging mutations aren't lost that way you described, there are for example many diseases that have come to be through mutations.

 

[artybloke]

Could you then move on? I think you couldn't. The next thing you would do would probably take you back to the previous level.

Shuffle a pack of cards. Take a card out and put it to one side. Then shuffle the pack again, Everytime you shuffle the pack, there will be one card that will never come up again. The card you took out.

This, like all analogies, is only a partial explanation; but that's how it works: once natural selection has picked its card, it can't be unpicked,

 

[Tomk80]

I'm not geneticist but I think there is one significant mistake in your analogy. Mutations are random, right? So let's think you guessed right on your billion-and-first attempt (that kind of number of attempts would require very long time periods, wouldn't it). But if there were all those attempts and then you finally succeeded, what would happen after it? Could you then move on? I think you couldn't. The next thing you would do would probably take you back to the previous level. If you gained something for a moment, you would anyway lose it through those copying mistakes in the future. So your success on your billion-and-first attempt would become totally useless and you were to start again from your starting point. In addition to this, I think you are overestimating the efficiency of natural selection: all damaging mutations aren't lost that way you described, there are for example many diseases that have come to be through mutations.

Yes, but there are two explanation for this. The first is that natural selection only works on reproduction. A damaging mutation which will cause a disease when someone is 60 will not be weeded out, since those people have already reproduced. However, it will also not be important (on the level of evolution), since it does not hinder reproductive succes. We even see species were the parents sacrifice themselves for the offspring. As long as a mutation will give a reproductive benefit, it will be kept in the species. However, natural selection is very effective in weeding out the mutations that prevent someone from having offspring for a very simple reason. They will never reproduce.

As for not moving on after a first beneficial mutation? Why wouldn't that be possible? Why would there be a limit?

 

[reconciliation]

Shuffle a pack of cards. Take a card out and put it to one side. Then shuffle the pack again, Everytime you shuffle the pack, there will be one card that will never come up again. The card you took out.

This, like all analogies, is only a partial explanation; but that's how it works: once natural selection has picked its card, it can't be unpicked,

Now, in your analogy, there is a determining difference compared with the original one. If you take up a card and don't put it back, you do that one (1) time. H2whoa spoke of billion-and-one times. If you have one random mutations, it doesn't help you since it's almost certainly information-decreasing or neutral. So that one attempt cannot provide information needed for evolutionary development. But the problem is this: if you succeed with your billion-and-first attempt, why don't you try still another billion times to lose what you gained. (Remember, evolution doesn't suppose that you could stop after you have succeeded, but it is totally random process).

When has the natural selection picked its card? Why should it happen just in the right moment, not for example one, two or three attempts before the right moment (or after it)?

 

[Randall McNally]

Now, in your analogy, there is a determining difference compared with the original one. If you take up a card and don't put it back, you do that one (1) time. H2whoa spoke of billion-and-one times. If you have one random mutations, it doesn't help you since it's almost certainly information-decreasing or neutral. So that one attempt cannot provide information needed for evolutionary development. But the problem is this: if you succeed with your billion-and-first attempt, why don't you try still another billion times to lose what you gained. (Remember, evolution doesn't suppose that you could stop after you have succeeded, but it is totally random process).

When has the natural selection picked its card? Why should it happen just in the right moment, not for example one, two or three attempts before the right moment (or after it)?

We can't say that this did not happen. In fact, it probably did happen. If it did happen, life as we know it is indeed the 3.5 billion-year-in-the-making product of the most successful of the lot of these original self-replicators.

Alas, we might never find evidence of the original variety of replicators since such rudimentary molecules wouldn't have left any fossil evidence.

 

[caravelair]

I'm not geneticist but I think there is one significant mistake in your analogy. Mutations are random, right? So let's think you guessed right on your billion-and-first attempt (that kind of number of attempts would require very long time periods, wouldn't it). But if there were all those attempts and then you finally succeeded, what would happen after it? Could you then move on? I think you couldn't.

why not? there are millions of other genes in the body that can be mutated, and lots of junk dna that can be edited.

The next thing you would do would probably take you back to the previous level.

why would it do that? i see no reason. and if this is so, why haven't any of these species' reverted back to the species' we observed them evolving from?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If you gained something for a moment, you would anyway lose it through those copying mistakes in the future.

no you wouldn't. because if it's a beneficial change, then a mutation to remove that change would be harmful, and would not spread through the population.

So your success on your billion-and-first attempt would become totally useless and you were to start again from your starting point.

but this is not what we observe happening in nature.

 

[caravelair]

If you have one random mutations, it doesn't help you since it's almost certainly information-decreasing or neutral.

do you have any evidence to support this claim? how do you know what percentage of mutations add information? where are you getting this from?

 

[reconciliation]

As for not moving on after a first beneficial mutation? Why wouldn't that be possible? Why would there be a limit?

The first beneficial mutation would be lost when the next mutations would occur. Let's use this analogy. You are copying a book. You happen to make one mistake that makes the book a little better. Then you make the second mistake. Will this make the book better again? Probably it won't. Your second mistake might restore the book to it's original form or perhaps it would just cause some grammatic error. Anyway it's very improbable that this second error could bring any new information compatible with the first error and of course the book itself. So the limit is simply that there isn't any reason for mutations to "know" when they are beneficial and when damaging, so they aren't able to work out or develop their influence in the past or present.

 

[Jet Black]

abstract: you have forgotten natural selection

The first beneficial mutation would be lost when the next mutations would occur. Let's use this analogy. You are copying a book. You happen to make one mistake that makes the book a little better. Then you make the second mistake. Will this make the book better again? Probably it won't. Your second mistake might restore the book to it's original form or perhaps it would just cause some grammatic error. Anyway it's very improbable that this second error could bring any new information compatible with the first error and of course the book itself. So the limit is simply that there isn't any reason for mutations to "know" when they are beneficial and when damaging, so they aren't able to work out or develop their influence in the past or present.

The problem is that you have forgotten natural selection. You see if the first mutation is beneficial it will spread through the population. If the second mutation is detrimental, it will not spread through the population, but die out. so you will find that in the population, only the first mutation is present. However if a third mutation occurs within the population that is beneficial it will spread. So there is the solution to your problem; the increased reproductive success of organism with beneficial mutations will see those beneficial mutations spread through the population and detrimental mutations will be eliminated. no need for mutations to "know" about one another, differential reproductive success sorts all the good ones out.

problem solved

 

[caravelair]

The first beneficial mutation would be lost when the next mutations would occur.

no, because the next mutations are not going to occur in the same organism, they are going to occur in one of it's descendants. if an organism gets a beneficial mutation it will pass this mutations down to all of it's descendants, and those descendants will have mutations aswell, but they will not all have the same mutations. so even if one or 2 of them do lose the trait later on, there will be dozens of other descendants that do not lose the trait. those that lose the trait will also be competing for resources with others that have the advantage of the beneficial trait, and therefore will be less likely to pass on their reverted genes.

and as i have already pointed out, you analogy contradicts what we observe in nature. if your analogy is correct, then why haven't these species reverted to the ones we observed them evolving from?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[reconciliation]

i see no reason. and if this is so, why haven't any of these species' reverted back to the species' we observed them evolving from?:

The reason is that they haven't ever evolved from them. If they had we really should have a lot of transitional fossils, a lot of species that have evolved and then reverted back, and of course a huge number of "attempts" that have succeeded only partly or even failed fully (these should be a vast majority of species). Now those fossils that have been found are better understood to describe different "kinds" which then have lost some parts of their genetic capacity through mutations, isolation and natural selection. This has led to "new" species.

 

[Jet Black]

The reason is that they haven't ever evolved from them. If they had we really should have a lot of transitional fossils, a lot of species that have evolved and then reverted back, and of course a huge number of "attempts" that have succeeded only partly or even failed fully (these should be a vast majority of species).

These arguments are nonsensical and do not represent how evolution works at all. For some characteristic we will find that there is a distribution of properties of that characteristic, lets say a bell curve for example (I am not including de novo mutations here for simplicity) and differential reproductive success will affect certain members of that group more than others because of this distribution. this alters the prevalence of certin genes in the population which are handed onto the next generation. There is no "species that appear and then revert back" or "attempts that have partially or totally failed" because it is the entire breeding population that is pushed in one direction, and all the fossils you will find will be of organisms that exist somewhere on that spectrum of characteristics.

Now those fossils that have been found are better understood to describe different "kinds" which then have lost some parts of their genetic capacity through mutations, isolation and natural selection. This has led to "new" species.

really? such as what? exactly what is being lost in the theropod or therapsid transitionals? for example the Diarthrognathus has both a reptillian and a mammalian jaw... at the same time. So on one hand it is losing jaw joints, but at the same time gaining jaw control and hearing ability.