I'm looking for...

[unworthyone]

A list of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS resulting in the addition of DNA information. (no mere swapping of material from one thing to another such as black wings to white, as this is just a mutation of change, not of addition.)

Anybody know where to find some?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

This one is actually better, although the above page links to it:

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html

 

[unworthyone]

Thanks I'll check it out. 

 

[Morat]

  Sure. But first you're going to have to define "information" in the sense that you use it. Everytime this comes up, the term "information" takes on something of a slippery meaning. Last time, it boiled down that "information" meant "something evolution can't add" which made the whole affair somewhat pointless.

  So, which definition do you use? Shannon?

 

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Morat
  Sure. But first you're going to have to define "information" in the sense that you use it. Everytime this comes up, the term "information" takes on something of a slippery meaning. Last time, it boiled down that "information" meant "something evolution can't add" which made the whole affair somewhat pointless.  
So, which definition do you use? Shannon? 

Well I mean something other then a loss of wings, a change in wing color, or the inherited trait of having mangled eyes. This all results in the removal of something. What "additional" mutations have they found that wasn't a diseased or killing change?

Where does "more info" occur?

 

[seebs]

UWO: Would you like a real discussion of "new information"? I feel this is one of the few fields where I can actually contribute, because it's a problem in computer science, too.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs
UWO: Would you like a real discussion of "new information"? I feel this is one of the few fields where I can actually contribute, because it's a problem in computer science, too.

 

Yeah I think we've went around this issue many times before and I am diligently looking for such things...

Sample DNA strand:

123456789 mutation A occurs 12345678A

I'm looking for:

123456789 mutation B occurs 123456789B

 

 

 

 

[Morat]

Well I mean something other then a loss of wings, a change in wing color, or the inherited trait of having mangled eyes. This all results in the removal of something. What "additional" mutations have they found that wasn't a diseased or killing change?

Where does "more info" occur?

  You still haven't defined "information". Information does have a strict, formal definition.

1) ABCD has less information than ABCDABCD.

2) AAAA has less information than AABA

 Do you agree with these statements, why or why not?

 How about these?

1) Does the appearance of a new eye color change the amount of information in a population?

2) Does doubling the length of a gene change the amount of information in a population?

3) If you change a base pair in #2, does this change the amount of information?

 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone

Sample DNA strand:

123456789 mutation A occurs 12345678A

I'm looking for:

123456789 mutation B occurs 123456789B

Would you accept an intermediate stage, such as
123456789
12345678989
123456789A9

?

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Morat
   You still haven't defined "information". Information does have a strict, formal definition.

Humans have more genetic information then plants.

1) Does the appearance of a new eye color change the amount of information in a population?

No. A third eye when two are present is an acceptable change.

2) Does doubling the length of a gene change the amount of information in a population?

If the gene survives then yes, it is good information.

3) If you change a base pair in #2, does this change the amount of information? 

No. But could be a mutation.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs
Would you accept an intermediate stage, such as
123456789
12345678989
123456789A9
?

Thats fine if we can show that this change does not kill itself, the host, or return to its original state.

 

[seebs]

What if it sometimes kills the host, but sometimes helps a lot? That would be sickle-cell anemia.

I think the key is that, once you get a feel for how "more information" is usefully measured, you find that this happens all the time.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think worthy will find exactly what he is looking for in the two links LFOD posted.. If not, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ and the links in the sidebar from it will probably help him immensely... Thanks seebs & LFOD.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs
What if it sometimes kills the host, but sometimes helps a lot? That would be sickle-cell anemia.

I didn't know it helps. How does it?

I thought it reduced the bloods function to send oxygen to the cells, and aren't you more likely to die prematurely as a result?

I don't this one is very good because its questionable from the beginning.

Using a potentially fatal disease to fight another one isn't beneficial.

There has got to be more then that out the infinite amount of observable mutations.

 

[seebs]

I just thought it was a good cheap example of something which, *in the environment it showed up in*, was a huge life-saver; keep in mind, malaria was a generally-fatal disease for a long time.

Using one fatal disease to fight another is, empirically, beneficial. If without it, two of your four kids die from malaria, and with it, one of your kids dies of sickle-cell anemia, two are fine, and one may or may not die from malaria - you're ahead at least half a kid.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I think worthy will find exactly what he is looking for in the two links LFOD posted.. If not, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ and the links in the sidebar from it will probably help him immensely... Thanks seebs & LFOD.

Yes I understand the links (kind-of) but the problem is these mutations are in generally stated as "non-beneficial" even by Edward Max:

"Does the fact that we know many human detrimental mutations but essentially no clear beneficial ones mean that there are have been no beneficial mutations in human history?"

Okay but I'm running into a big wall here. If we see, generally speaking, a majority of mutations resulting in the loss of information or the killing of the host, how can we say that mutations are the "backbone" to evolutionary theory?

We've got 6.5 billion people in the world with an endless amount of possible mutations but the only ones we observe have potentially harmful, even fatal, results?

Does the same mutation have to occur in both sexes and survive before the said "beneficial mutation" can be passed to offspring?

 

[unworthyone]

Which btw, does sickle-cell anemia result in the "Addition of New Info" or is simply replacing by destroying other information?

 

[seebs]

UWO, I think your concept of "adding" or "removing" information is probably incorrect; that's why I suggested discussing it.

As to how mutation can pay off, when so much of it is bad... imagine that, in a generation, we have perhaps a hundred thousand young of some species. If one in a hundred is mutated, and one percent of those mutations are successful, and the rest are harmful, we have ten young creatures with an advantage... meaning that they will have *more* than ten of the next hundred thousand surviving children. Or at least, this is the theory. You can see it in practice; look at breeding, and imagine a mildly incompetent breeder who doesn't always weed out the culls, or who sometimes fails to appreciate a real success. You can still get improvement over time.

I really think a more focused discussion of what it means to "replace" or "destroy" or "add" information would be crucial.

If I tell you that my old street address used to be:
XXXX Lyndale Avenue
and then I "merely replace or destroy" that with
3949 Lyndale Avenue
you've got more information.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs
UWO, I think your concept of "adding" or "removing" information is probably incorrect; that's why I suggested discussing it.
As to how mutation can pay off, when so much of it is bad... imagine that, in a generation, we have perhaps a hundred thousand young of some species. If one in a hundred is mutated, and one percent of those mutations are successful, and the rest are harmful, we have ten young creatures with an advantage... meaning that they will have *more* than ten of the next hundred thousand surviving children. Or at least, this is the theory. You can see it in practice; look at breeding, and imagine a mildly incompetent breeder who doesn't always weed out the culls, or who sometimes fails to appreciate a real success. You can still get improvement over time.
I really think a more focused discussion of what it means to "replace" or "destroy" or "add" information would be crucial.
If I tell you that my old street address used to be:
XXXX Lyndale Avenue
and then I "merely replace or destroy" that with
3949 Lyndale Avenue
you've got more information.

Yes I understand what you are saying but there absolutely MUST be a mechanism that makes the xxxx turn to 12345 and not DIE!

The genetic code for bacteria is obviously pretty lame in comparison to us as humans. How did we get through the steps?

From point A to point sqrt(- i).....How?

Everybody knows the pretty little pictures they show on tv and magazines of DNA strands. There are obviously VERY complex. What thing makes a piece of DNA information mutate then duplicate then mutate again then survive the whole ordeal?

Keep in mind it cannot destory pre-existing information because that does not add to the complexity of the DNA strand and in most cases results in a loss of complexity.

 

[unworthyone]

How we get from this:

Bacteria:

To this:

Human: