Mutations are always bad - or are they? A simple thought experiment.

[Digit]

I've recently taken to discussions in GA/Crevo over, here. As one way or another, we are all saved anyhow. So really, what is the point?

Anyhow, I don't have a response to your posts, as I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss it.

Digit

 

[KerrMetric]

Still waiting.....

 

[Fed]

The opposite of harmful is nonharmful, not beneficial.

heheeh

 

[Deamiter]

The opposite of harmful is nonharmful, not beneficial.

heheeh

Literally, maybe, but we're not really talking about the semantic opposite here. We're discussing a mutation and then a second mutation that exactly counters the first mutation.

If the first mutation is harmful, the second must be beneficial by definition.

 

[Fed]

Sorry, that's the best impersonation I could do without resorting to irrelevant statements about information.

 

[On the Narrow Road]

I see no net gain here. If you start at 1, go back to 0, then back to 1....you haven't gained anything. Granted I am no expert, but this seems obvious to me even though I was educated in the government school system.

 

[Deamiter]

I see no net gain here. If you start at 1, go back to 0, then back to 1....you haven't gained anything. Granted I am no expert, but this seems obvious to me even though I was educated in the government school system.

Sure, the net gain is zero, but that's not the point. Some people claim that you can only lose information through a mutation. They are incorrectly using computer-based information theory (where any change is a loss of information) and applying it to mutations and saying that there can never be an increase in information.

This thought experiment shows that a mutation can indeed increase the information content under computer-based information theory. That this application of information theory is utter nonsense in terms of DNA is much more difficult to explain. In short, nobody has even remotely attempted to assign a measurable value to a sequence of DNA so it's nonsensical to say that one sequence has more information than another.

But that's not the point of the thread. Under the incorrectly-applied information theory, it is inaccurate to say that a mutation cannot increase the amount of information because any mutation that decreases the amount of information (by any definition) can be reversed and the reversing mutation must by definition have increased the amount of information in the sequence.

 

[KerrMetric]

*bump*

 

[elcapitan]

You should try sending your thought experiment to AiG and see what they have to say.

 

[AbsoluteTruth]

You should try sending your thought experiment to AiG and see what they have to say.

(Long time lurker)
This whole thread is based on a fallacious assumption. AiG addresses this exact point in their "Arguments we think creationists should not use". To quote them:
“There are no beneficial mutations.”

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.” For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Q&A: Mutations

 

[random_guy]

(Long time lurker)
This whole thread is based on a fallacious assumption. AiG addresses this exact point in their "Arguments we think creationists should not use". To quote them:
“There are no beneficial mutations.”

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.” For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Q&A: Mutations

No, this thread also hurts that argument. Imagine you have a DNA code, AGTG, which is very advantageous. Now you get a mutation, CGTG, which isn't advantageous. According to Creationists, this is a "loss of genetic information" (whatever that means).

Well, biologically, this new organism can have offspring with a new mutation, AGTG, reverting back to the original code. This results in an increase of "genetic information" (again, whatever that means). So A->C results in a lost, a reverse, C->A results in a gain. So that's how a gain of genetic information (again, Creationists never define genetic information) can occur.

So this refutes the Creationist argument that it's impossible to get a gain of genetic information.

 

[KerrMetric]

(Long time lurker)
This whole thread is based on a fallacious assumption. AiG addresses this exact point in their "Arguments we think creationists should not use". To quote them:
“There are no beneficial mutations.”

No it is not based on a fallacious assumption since I get this assumption trotted out all the time. The assumption does exist in creationist circles. That is undeniable.

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.” For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Q&A: Mutations

They know full well that the standard creationist argument was no beneifical mutations and the reson that was stated was because of the no increase in information. Seeing that is a no go AIG are now attempting to argue that they are two different things. That's all well and good but until they define information this new argument of theirs is about as useful as a fart in a tornado.

If they don't define information then they can play ignorant (a skill they do have in spades) and pretend it never increases. But it is hardly intellectually honest to claim they have seen no case when they refuse to state the definition that allows them to measure one way or the other.

 

[elcapitan]

(Long time lurker)
This whole thread is based on a fallacious assumption. AiG addresses this exact point in their "Arguments we think creationists should not use". To quote them:
“There are no beneficial mutations.”

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.” For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Q&A: Mutations

Wow. What a knee-jerk reaction.

You misunderstood the OP. He wasn't just arguing that mutations can be beneficial. He was also arguing that there are mutations that increase genetic information. Proving the former formed the basis for proving the latter.

Maybe next time you should read more than just the title.

 

[sageoffools]

Can I get some clarification?
I see some speculation in the OP. "Let's pretend the gene is mutated negatively...then pretend it is mutated positively"
Is there any evidence that this has happened. It is very easy to speculate, but science is not about speculation, science is about evidence. Obviously, if your speculated "thought experiment" does not work and is not testable, it is obvious that either your thought process or your conclusion are incorrect.
Additionally, when you say the gene "is mutated" are you referring to natural mutation or human forced mutation?

 

[KerrMetric]

Can I get some clarification?
I see some speculation in the OP. "Let's pretend the gene is mutated negatively...then pretend it is mutated positively"

You are missing the point - it is a thought experiment. The fact is point mutations happen. The fact is they can be deleterious. The fact is if you reverse the mutation by a point mutation then it has to be the opposite of deleterious. Ergo - mutations can be beneficial. If you cast this, as creationists often do as a loss of information then the reverse case has to be gain of information.

Is there any evidence that this has happened. It is very easy to speculate, but science is not about speculation, science is about evidence. Obviously, if your speculated "thought experiment" does not work and is not testable, it is obvious that either your thought process or your conclusion are incorrect.
Additionally, when you say the gene "is mutated" are you referring to natural mutation or human forced mutation?

Totally missing the point. And science is often just as much about theory as experiment.

A thought experiment is just a simple model. The fact is point mutations occur - I just didn't want to bog things down with some specific example when the specifics do not matter here.

 

[sageoffools]

If your point is simply that mutations can reverse damage, and thereby you conclude that this would be considered a "beneficial mutation" I would concur, with stipulations.
I do agree that mutations can reverse damage and that is beneficial to them, I disagree however that this is proof for evolution.
For example, if I have a healthy body, say a 5 and I am injured, taking me back to 2, my body can repair itself, bringing it back to 5, but cannot make itself a 6 or a 10.
Again, if you are simply saying that creationists should not make the claim that all mutation is negative, I would agree. I think they should better clarify their point.
Unfortunately, may people make arguments based on false facts or incorrect assumptions and, although their conclusion may be correct, it makes their argument very weak and leaves them open to easy attack.

 

[gluadys]

If your point is simply that mutations can reverse damage, and thereby you conclude that this would be considered a "beneficial mutation" I would concur, with stipulations.
I do agree that mutations can reverse damage and that is beneficial to them, I disagree however that this is proof for evolution.
For example, if I have a healthy body, say a 5 and I am injured, taking me back to 2, my body can repair itself, bringing it back to 5, but cannot make itself a 6 or a 10.

Actually, there is no particular reason you could not bring it up to a 6 or a 10. If the consequence of your injury was to focus your attention more on caring for your body, you might end up being even more healthy than you were before the injury because you are now eating a more healthy diet, exercising more, spending more time on stress management, etc.

 

[sageoffools]

Actually, there is no particular reason you could not bring it up to a 6 or a 10. If the consequence of your injury was to focus your attention more on caring for your body, you might end up being even more healthy than you were before the injury because you are now eating a more healthy diet, exercising more, spending more time on stress management, etc.

True, but what I am talking about, and what I assume Kerrmetric is talking about, is untampered mutations.
I, using my outside force, could cause my body to improve, based on changes that I make. But my body could not become a 10 without my purposeful intervention.
Likewise, with a mutation, it could not change from a 1 to a 0 and then to a 5 without outside intervention. But outside force is a provision made in most scientific laws.

 

[random_guy]

True, but what I am talking about, and what I assume Kerrmetric is talking about, is untampered mutations.
I, using my outside force, could cause my body to improve, based on changes that I make. But my body could not become a 10 without my purposeful intervention.
Likewise, with a mutation, it could not change from a 1 to a 0 and then to a 5 without outside intervention. But outside force is a provision made in most scientific laws.

Could you give me a scientific reason why this isn't possible? According to your argument, all of life is doing nothing but degrading away, as there are no beneficial mutations that can increase past some fitness "ceiling". Are you just making stuff up, or do you have an actual source?

 

[gluadys]

True, but what I am talking about, and what I assume Kerrmetric is talking about, is untampered mutations.

No, Kerrmetric is talking about two different mutations, the second of which reverses the negative effect of the first. Neither mutation is tampered with.

I, using my outside force, could cause my body to improve, based on changes that I make. But my body could not become a 10 without my purposeful intervention.
Likewise, with a mutation, it could not change from a 1 to a 0 and then to a 5 without outside intervention. But outside force is a provision made in most scientific laws.

But it is not a single mutation that is going from 1 to 0 back to 1 (or onto 5). It is the fitness level of the species in which the mutations (plural) are happening.

In Kerrmetric's thought experiment, as a consequence of a mutation with a negative effect, the level of fitness drops. In your phrase "from 1 to 0". A second mutation--exact opposite of the first--restores the original fitness level back from 0 to 1.

Now, if you agree with that possible scenario, consider the possibility of a third mutation. It could raise the fitness level again from 1 to 5.