Something for the scientists to debate

[Hieronymus]

Language is meaningless in itself.

No, the characters by themselves are meaningless.

 

[The Cadet]

So if you have a fully functioning system based on data implementations, randomly mutating the data will be 'deleterous'.

Except that this is demonstrably not the case with DNA. Case in point: the peppered moth had a single point mutation that caused a significant evolutionary advantage. Maybe the problem is that you need to build more robust computer architectures that are better at handling random errors. Maybe the problem is that your analogy simply does not fit very well.

 

[Hieronymus]

Except that this is demonstrably not the case with DNA.

Yes it is, it's called: random mutation.
Itś one of the premises for evolution.
But you now seem to deny it...

 

[Derek Meyer]

Except that this is demonstrably not the case with DNA. Case in point: the peppered moth had a single point mutation that caused a significant evolutionary advantage. Maybe the problem is that you need to build more robust computer architectures that are better at handling random errors. Maybe the problem is that your analogy simply does not fit very well.

The Cadet, to try and have a rational conversation with Hieronymous is really like trying to have a rational conversation with an long-time inhabitant of Weskoppies.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Maybe the problem is that you need to build more robust computer architectures that are better at handling random errors. Maybe the problem is that your analogy simply does not fit very well.

I think the latter is a better fit. The genes and gene regulation in DNA are not like simple programs running on a conventional computer where a single bit change is likely to crash the program.

Most genes are templates for the sequence of amino acids in a protein; if you make a random change to such a gene, you get a different protein. Other parts of DNA are involved in regulating the expression of genes; if you make a random change to them, you get changes in the expression of genes. These changes may produce lethal results, but, particularly for polyploid genomes, where there are multiple copies of genes - i.e. 'spares', there is scope for random changes to produce new (and potentially useful) proteins, and to change how, or when, or to what degree, genes are expressed, without necessarily 'crashing' the organism.

The claim that 'new information' can't come from random mutations to DNA in a genome is simply a product of ignorance of how genomes function and the variety of roles a mutation can take in that function.

 

[The Cadet]

Yes it is, it's called: random mutation.
Itś one of the premises for evolution.
But you now seem to deny it...

Oh, I don't deny random mutation. I simply assert that it is possible for random mutation to be beneficial. And I just provided an example of how that is the case. You seem to claim that this is not the case.

 

[pshun2404]

I loved this line

"Beneficial mutations are simply assumed to exist because Darwinian theory demands that they exist."

It reminds me of when Ernst Mayr said (What Makes Biology Unique?, p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004):

“The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

or when David Pilbeam, (Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127), said “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to the actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ”.

Now make no mistake, both these men believe in evolution...but at least they have enough intellectual integrity to not cease believing (they have their faith) while still being able to separate the actual data from the hypothesis based "explanation"....they can still believe this to be the case while admitting that is not the automatic conclusion based on the data it is a narrative to explain what is seen in light of the hypothesis. Not the same....

 

[The Cadet]

I loved this line

"Beneficial mutations are simply assumed to exist because Darwinian theory demands that they exist."

Why? Because it's a dirty, dirty lie?

 

[Loudmouth]

You know how.
Random mutations are random.
So if you have a fully functioning system based on data implementations, randomly mutating the data will be 'deleterous'.

So you are saying that if the process of random mutation changes a specific base, it will always be deleterious. However, if a deity purposefully changes that very same base in the very same way, it will be beneficial? How does that add up?

Since we differ from chimps by 40 million mutations, does that mean humans are corrupted chimps?

 

[Loudmouth]

I loved this line

"Beneficial mutations are simply assumed to exist because Darwinian theory demands that they exist."

It reminds me of when Ernst Mayr said (What Makes Biology Unique?, p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004):

“The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

or when David Pilbeam, (Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127), said “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to the actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ”.

Now make no mistake, both these men believe in evolution...but at least they have enough intellectual integrity to not cease believing (they have their faith) while still being able to separate the actual data from the hypothesis based "explanation"....they can still believe this to be the case while admitting that is not the automatic conclusion based on the data it is a narrative to explain what is seen in light of the hypothesis. Not the same....

It reminds me of when David wrote in the 14th Psalm that "There is no God".

 

[Hieronymus]

Oh, I don't deny random mutation. I simply assert that it is possible for random mutation to be beneficial. And I just provided an example of how that is the case. You seem to claim that this is not the case.

Iḿ not sure if the peppermoth owes itś colour change to a mutation.
It could be though, letś assume it is due to a mutation.
It didn't mutate because of the benefit of it.
But the blacks have a better chance in a sooty environment, obviously.
Thatś why they thrived in a sooty environment.
But itś still a peppermoth.
And where there's no soot, the white ones thrive, the black ones don't.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think the latter is a better fit. The genes and gene regulation in DNA are not like simple programs running on a conventional computer where a single bit change is likely to crash the program.

Exactly.
It's a much more complicated system.

 

[Loudmouth]

Iḿ not sure if the peppermoth owes itś colour change to a mutation.
It could be though, letś assume it is due to a mutation.
It didn't mutate because of the benefit of it.
But the blacks have a better chance in a sooty environment, obviously.
Thatś why they thrived in a sooty environment.
But itś still a peppermoth.
And where there's no soot, the white ones thrive, the black ones don't.

In a sooty environment, a mutation leading to black coloration would be a beneficial mutation, would it not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly.
It's a much more complicated system.

Every human is born with about 50 mutations. In just 10 generations, that is 500 accumulated mutations. How is it that humans are still alive?

 

[Hieronymus]

The Cadet, to try and have a rational conversation with Hieronymous is really like trying to have a rational conversation with an long-time inhabitant of Weskoppies.

How would you know?

 

[Jimmy D]

Iḿ not sure if the peppermoth owes itś colour change to a mutation.
It could be though, letś assume it is due to a mutation.
It didn't mutate because of the benefit of it.
But the blacks have a better chance in a sooty environment, obviously.
Thatś why they thrived in a sooty environment.
But itś still a peppermoth.
And where there's no soot, the white ones thrive, the black ones don't.

Cadet just posted a link showing that it is due to a mutation there's no need to assume. The rest of your post more or less describes the process of natural selection, well done, you're an evolutionist!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Exactly.
It's a much more complicated system.

It's a question of how it's organized rather than complexity. Complexity is not, of itself, any guarantee of resilience. A system that has evolved by natural selection will inevitably be resilient to the kind of changes that drove its evolution; and there's some reason (by analogy with neural networks) to think that the structural organization of DNA in the genome has evolved as linked networks of functional modules that can effectively store successful strategies, making the genome an adaptive learning system over evolutionary timescales (see Why Evolution May be Intelligent).

 

[The Cadet]

Iḿ not sure if the peppermoth owes itś colour change to a mutation.
It could be though, letś assume it is due to a mutation.

I just linked to an article in Nature discussing the study that shows that yes, it is a mutation. A specific point mutation in a specific part of the genome, to be precise. We can establish this pretty darn well.

It didn't mutate because of the benefit of it.

...So what? It mutated. This mutation turned out to be extremely beneficial in their environment. This mutation was passed on. So when you say this:

Random mutations are random.
So if you have a fully functioning system based on data implementations, randomly mutating the data will be 'deleterous'.
Nothing funny about it, just sad i have to explain the obvious.

It's not "obvious", it's just flat-out wrong. Yes, beneficial mutations are less common than deleterious or neutral ones (and the reason for this has nothing to do with "corruption", it has to do with local fitness peaks and the fitness landscape), but they do exist. The analogy simply doesn't work.