Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[ricmat]

That may well be correct in the case of encyclopedias, but it is not correct in the case of genomes. In the human genome about 5% of our DNA codes for proteins while a further 5% codes for switches to turn genes off an on but not for actual proteins. The rest has no apparent function. Mutations in that 90% have no effect on us.

I’ve heard that junk DNA is turning out to be not junk. It seems strange that non-functional DNA would be propagated.

So to the calculation. Taking the string “pi = 3.14159” and restricting ourselves to single character changes.

1 Deletions. With 12 characters there are 12 possible single character deletions. Two of these are neutral “pi= 3.14159” and “pi =3.14159”, the other ten are deleterious.

2 Insertions. Assume an alphabet of 26 letters, space and eleven punctuation marks for a total of 38 characters. A few insertions are neutral: " pi = 3.14159", “pi == 3.14159” and so forth, but the great majority are deleterious. Two insertion mutations are slightly beneficial: “pi = 3.141591” and “pi = 3.141593” while one single insertion mutation is very beneficial: “pi = 3.141592”.

If we assume that there are ten neutral insertions then we can just match them with the ten deleterious deletions and just calculate the total number of possible insertions. There are 13 possible places for an insertion and at each position there are 38 possible characters to insert. The total number is 3813 insertions = 3.44 x 1020 insertions. If we assume a population of 600,000,000 encyclopedias (one for every ten people) then using my figure above of 5,000 changes per million we have 600 x 5,000 = 3 x 106 changes per generation. We would expect on average to see the first beneficial mutant after about 3.44 x 1020 / 3 x (3 x 106) = 3.83 x 1013 generations.

Well, thanks for actually doing the math. But don’t you need to take the whole encyclopedia into account? While pi is getting improved, everything else is deteriorating. Oops…there goes a kidney. Oops…the hemoglobin doesn’t work anymore. Oops…etc. [excuse me for going back to biology for a minute].

By the time the trivial improvement in pi comes about (say very optimistically after 1013 generations, it is either in conjunction with other detrimental changes, or is on a base which includes 1013 generations worth of detrimental changes.

Now (per a previous question I asked) if DNA has “copy error protection” then it is not biased to create [many mutations / very few improvements], but rather “no changes at all”. It is difficult to see how this can be part of an evolutionary scheme from simple to complex life.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss all this, but my personal incredulity remains

 

[Monty_Arch]

You’ve given plenty of evidence that mutations occur, but mutations are not known to create anything that benefits populations.

How about methicillin resistant staphlococcus aureus?

 

[rossum]

Only if someone knows the Pi value is wrong. Perhaps uninformed people will buy the copies with the error and these are the only ones left after a period of time. Then we will have a whole population of encyclopedia’s that have been propagated with errors. Who would know?

My encyclopedia universe is populated by reviewers as well. In the real world this is equivalent to “How many offspring did you manage to produce?” THe reviewers introduce the element of selection between the different versions. The reviewers know the value of pi and who is currently President.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’ve heard that junk DNA is turning out to be not junk. It seems strange that non-functional DNA would be propagated.

It may well be that the function of the 90% of DNA is just to reduce the rate of deleterious mutations. Set up a lot of false targets so the real targets get hit less often. Having said that a species of Puffer Fish has a much reduced genome with almost no spare DNA in it at all. We don’t yet know why.

Well, thanks for actually doing the math. But don’t you need to take the whole encyclopedia into account? While pi is getting improved, everything else is deteriorating. Oops…there goes a kidney. Oops…the hemoglobin doesn’t work anymore. Oops…etc. [excuse me for going back to biology for a minute].

Then you need to do the calculations for biology. There the numbers are very different, for example it has been calculated that there are about 2.3 x 10**93 different ways to make a functioning Cytochrome C. That is an awful lot of targets if you only have to hit one of them. Most proteins are like that - there are a lot of different ways to make them; a lot of targets to hit…

The numbers do not translate well from encyclopedias to biology.

By the time the trivial improvement in pi comes about (say very optimistically after 1013 generations, it is either in conjunction with other detrimental changes, or is on a base which includes 1013 generations worth of detrimental changes.

No, in each generation the detrimental changes are weeded out by the reviewers and the good copies are propagated. In the absence of improvements the previous best will be the most copied and will dominate the population.

Now (per a previous question I asked) if DNA has “copy error protection” then it is not biased to create [many mutations / very few improvements], but rather “no changes at all”. It is difficult to see how this can be part of an evolutionary scheme from simple to complex life.

With simple life there was much less error correction, and far more open and unfilled ways to make a living. As life evolved and got more complex and better adapted to its particular niche then the error correction evolved to keep a lid on changes so each organism’s DNA stayed reasonably close to its parents. If the parents have succeeded in reproducing then they must be reasonably successful so it is good to stay in that immediate area of DNA and explore just a little distance from where they are - it is obviously a good place to be.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss all this, but my personal incredulity remains

Personal incredulity is fine, but it is not something that can be taught in science class.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well, that’s not true at all. I’ve already given my definition for information, and I am eagerly awaiting YOUR DEFINITION. You have yet to give your definition.

I am afraid I must have missed your definition, which post in this thread had it?

Shannon information (H) is defined as http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/Entropy/NumberedEquation1.gif.

Shannon’s paper is here: A Mathematical Theory of Communication.

First off, DNA is anything but random.

Parts are, others are not. If you assert that it is all non-random then you will have to produce evidence.

That portion of DNA may have some other purpose other than what you can surmise.

And it may not have any purpose at all. In the absence of evidence science reverts to its standard default of “we do not know”. Unless and until you can produce some evidence, and personal opinion is not evidence, then science will continue to say “we do not know”.

Actually, you’ll need to see scientific proof that it does not.

No, you are the one making the claim that “Information does not arise spontaneously, but is a product of an abstract mind.” It is up to you to provide the supporting evidence. Merely putting forward a claim does not put the burden of proof on the other party. How about “PEPCIS eats boiled kittens and roast babies when nobody else is looking.” Is it up to me to support my statement or is it up to you to provide a falsification?

Actually, you haven’t shown.

Both Shannon information and Kolmogorov information can arise through evolutionary processes. I have shown it with an example. Even in the encyclopedia example a random mutation can increase the accuracy of an approximation of pi. I am providing evidence to support my position, you are providing your opinion. In science the evidence wins. Your personal opinion does not carry any weight in science.

You’ve made claims, but I’m not seeing it.

I am aware that you are not seeing it. You have made that abundantly clear.

The problem with accepting your claim that information can arise spontaneously through random natural processes, is that it is impossible.

Let us go over the pi example again. Here is an approximation of pi: 3.14159. It is possible, difficult but possible, for a random printing error to change that to a better approximation of pi: 3.141592. I have just shown that it is possible. You have claimed that it was impossible yet I have shown with a simple example that it is possible. Not common I agree, but possible. Even one counter example invalidates your claim of impossibility.

You’ve given plenty of evidence that mutations occur, but mutations are not known to create anything that benefits populations.

You need to read more about the subject. There are many beneficial mutations knowm. I am running out of links here, so you will have to google for “Apolipoprotein A-I Milano”, a beneficial mutation in humans which helps prevent heart disease. Again a single example is enough to refute your position - and there are other examples I could point to.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

"ricmat:

It would seem to me that the vast (vast, vast, vast) majority of changes to information/meaning in the original copy cannot be neutral or beneficial.

That may well be correct in the case of encyclopedias, but it is not correct in the case of genomes.

Actually, ricmat is correct. Mutation Accumulation experiments, along with an incredible amount of molecular evidence, clearly establish that the vast majority of new mutations are deleterious.

rossum:

In the human genome about 5% of our DNA codes for proteins while a further 5% codes for switches to turn genes off and on but not for actual proteins. The rest has no apparent function.

This is way off base. To begin with, 10% of 3 billion equals 300 MILLION BASE PAIRS of DNA. That’s a helluva lot of DNA by anyone’s count.

Another valid criticism of your statement is that there is no part of the code that is “non-functional.” That is the standard, pat answer that evolutionists give and have popularized in the scientific lay literature. But DNA is not simply a double helix structure, but has at least four levels, known as:

• primary
• secondary
• tertiary
• quaternary

The tertiary structure is largely determined by the primary structure, but the environment can have a significant effect on its shape as well.

To put it in simpler terms, the tertiary and quaternary structures are theorized to be an aspect of DNA function, which is not understood at this time.

rossum:

Mutations in that 90% have no effect on us.

That’s in evolution fairy tales. That is a claim that has no scientific basis.

rossum:

Even within the areas that do have an effect there are synonyms, all four of GCA, GCC, GCG and GCT code for Alanine so such synonymous changes are also neutral.

Another claim that has no scientific basis. Because scientists do not fully understand the four-fold nature/function of DNA, there are areas where a folded molecule may very well determine morphological or other functions and form of the host life-form.

rossum:

The great majority of mutations in humans are neutral. You are correct that the majority of non-neutral changes are deleterious.

And you can say that with a straight face?

 

[PEPCIS]

"buffalo:

The PI example - if the first deletrious mutation is ?.314159 then the number of decimals of precision won’t matter. The odds against it recovering from the ? is huge.

There is a population of encyclopedias.

This will not matter one iota. If the mutation becomes fixed in a population, which is expected under evolutionary propaganda because they claim that MOST mutations are not deleterious to a population, then we can expect that MULTIPLE mutations will exist in a populational genome. To listen to evolutionists It sounds like the accumulation of these mutations is WHAT THEY WANT TO OCCUR, because it will increase the pool of mutations so that a possible beneficial match will occur at some level/time in the continuing existence of the genome.

This just goes back to the old canard regarding evolution that “given enough time and enough mutations, new species will evolve.” But as I have repeatedly stated, natural selection acting on random changes will never produce anything of any value, because there is not enough time and enough changes to produce those “beneficial” events.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually, ricmat is correct. Mutation Accumulation experiments, along with an incredible amount of molecular evidence, clearly establish that the vast majority of new mutations are deleterious.

No, ricmat is wrong.

The evidence indicates in humans that there are about 3 harmful mutations per 175 total mutations, on the average.
Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304

Originally Posted by rossum
In the human genome about 5% of our DNA codes for proteins while a further 5% codes for switches to turn genes off and on but not for actual proteins. The rest has no apparent function.

This is way off base. To begin with, 10% of 3 billion equals 300 MILLION BASE PAIRS of DNA. That’s a helluva lot of DNA by anyone’s count.

Prokaryotes have less than 25% non-coding DNA, simple eukaryotes have between 25 and 50% non-coding DNA and more complex fungi, plants and animals have more than 50%, rising to approximately 98.5% non-coding DNA in humans —
nature.com/nrg/journal/v5/n4/fig_tab/nrg1321_F1.html

Another valid criticism of your statement is that there is no part of the code that is “non-functional.”

For much of it, there is no known function. It is very difficult to see how this one could be of any function.

There is likely a good amount of non-coding DNA which has some function, but then again, much of it doesn’t do anything.

Originally Posted by rossum
Mutations in that 90% have no effect on us.

**That’s in evolution fairy tales. That is a claim that has no scientific basis.
**

It’s observably true. Mutations in non-coding DNA don’t have much effect, if any.

Originally Posted by rossum
Even within the areas that do have an effect there are synonyms, all four of GCA, GCC, GCG and GCT code for Alanine so such synonymous changes are also neutral.

**Another claim that has no scientific basis. Because scientists do not fully understand the four-fold nature/function of DNA, there are areas where a folded molecule may very well determine morphological or other functions and form of the host life-form.
**

Let’s see your evidence for that one.

 

[buffalo]

This will not matter one iota. If the mutation becomes fixed in a population, which is expected under evolutionary propaganda because they claim that MOST mutations are not deleterious to a population, then we can expect that MULTIPLE mutations will exist in a populational genome. To listen to evolutionists It sounds like the accumulation of these mutations is WHAT THEY WANT TO OCCUR, because it will increase the pool of mutations so that a possible beneficial match will occur at some level/time in the continuing existence of the genome.

This just goes back to the old canard regarding evolution that “given enough time and enough mutations, new species will evolve.” But as I have repeatedly stated, natural selection acting on random changes will never produce anything of any value, because there is not enough time and enough changes to produce those “beneficial” events.

Does anyone want to play the The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge ?

 

[rossum]

Actually, ricmat is correct. Mutation Accumulation experiments, along with an incredible amount of molecular evidence, clearly establish that the vast majority of new mutations are deleterious.

Can you give a reference to those experiments please, I would be interested to see them.

This is way off base.

Please show me a reference where the correct numbers are given then.

Another valid criticism of your statement is that there is no part of the code that is “non-functional.”

Look up “introns”, there are stretches of DNA that are transleted into RNA, snipped out of the RNA string and thrown away. They may have a function of some sort (introns go back a long way) but they do not affect the final protein produced. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, by “non-functional” I meant “does not have any effect on the final protein produced”.

That’s in evolution fairy tales. That is a claim that has no scientific basis.

I will need some supporting references for that please.

Another claim that has no scientific basis.

Again, references to back up your claim please.

And you can say that with a straight face?

Yes, and I have the references to back me up. Google for “neutral theory” and “Kimura” for starters.

This will not matter one iota. If the mutation becomes fixed in a population, which is expected under evolutionary propaganda because they claim that MOST mutations are not deleterious to a population, then we can expect that MULTIPLE mutations will exist in a populational genome.

Multiple mutations in a populations genome is precisely what we see. How do you think that DNA paternity testing and forensics work? Each of us has unique DNA, and that includes our own unique set of mutations - most of which are neutral.

But as I have repeatedly stated, natural selection acting on random changes will never produce anything of any value, because there is not enough time and enough changes to produce those “beneficial” events.

You are wrong. We know that there is enough time because we have seen these beneficial events happening now: A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope for Heart Disease Patients. That is a mutation that is beneficial to those who carry it; something you say cannot happen. You are wrong yet again. You might wish to consider that the creationist websites that are telling you all these incorrect things are unreliable.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Does anyone want to play the The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge ?

I would rather hear Adam & Eve sing “Here I am Lord”.:clapping:

 

[Leela]

Does anyone want to play the The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge ?

Can you explain what this is about?

 

[Ender]

Ender: Did you mean to imply that meaning depends solely on the observer?
rossum: In this context, yes. An unreadable script can have no meaning, though it obviously contains information.

I’m not sure what context you are referring to but I cannot imagine a message where the meaning is supplied by the observer and not by the creator. You may or may not accurately comprehend the meaning but the only way I can even talk about comprehension is on the assumption that there is a specific meaning to be comprehended. I’m really struggling to understand what you meant and whether you can provide an example.

Ender

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what context you are referring to but I cannot imagine a message where the meaning is supplied by the observer and not by the creator. You may or may not accurately comprehend the meaning but the only way I can even talk about comprehension is on the assumption that there is a specific meaning to be comprehended. I’m really struggling to understand what you meant and whether you can provide an example.
Ender

Not quite sure how this comment fits in with the current discussion on meaning – maybe this is an example. Somewhere, I learned the concept of “Seven Levels of Ambiguity” as applied to both the author and the reader of the same bit of literature/information. This concept is exactly as it is stated. Being somewhat influenced by existentialist literature, it was often used in the Writers’ Institute section of the English Department. However, I’m thinking it was part of poetry appreciation.

Bottom line is that any given piece of information or any fact can be interpreted in a variety of ways, none of which are mutually exclusive.

 

[rossum]

I’m not sure what context you are referring to but I cannot imagine a message where the meaning is supplied by the observer and not by the creator.

Since I am not a mind reader I can never know exactly what the creator of the message was thinking. All I have to go on is the content of the message. When I measure the meaning of the message I can only measure the meaning as I see it. It is possible that the sender will measure a different meaning, but I cannot know what meaning she originally intended.

Witness the Bible, here is a message from God, yet it is interpretaed in many very different ways by Christians and (in part) by Jews. The meaning is different to different people, yet God presumably only had one meaning in mind. Since we cannot know directly what God had in mind we are reduced to trying to derive the meaning from the message, and getting different answers.

Measuring information (as opposed to meaning) is less subject to error.

I’m really struggling to understand what you meant and whether you can provide an example.

Does the Bible example help?

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Below, I quoted rossum twice in one post, with a reply by another person. In each case, I inadvertently formatted it so that it appears that the reply is party of rossum’s statement.

It should be:

Rossum:
Originally Posted by rossum
Mutations in that 90% have no effect on us.

Other person:
That’s in evolution fairy tales. That is a claim that has no scientific basis.

And:

Rossum:
Even within the areas that do have an effect there are synonyms, all four of GCA, GCC, GCG and GCT code for Alanine so such synonymous changes are also neutral.

Other person:
Another claim that has no scientific basis. Because scientists do not fully understand the four-fold nature/function of DNA, there are areas where a folded molecule may very well determine morphological or other functions and form of the host life-form.

In the first case, the “rebuttal” is demonstrably wrong. In the second, there is no evidence for the assertion.

Sorry about any confusion.

 

[grannymh]

The meaning is different to different people, yet God presumably only had one meaning in mind. Since we cannot know directly what God had in mind we are reduced to trying to derive the meaning from the message, and getting different answers.
rossum

I grew up in an environment where there was always more than one answer or interpretation of any issue. Regarding the Bible. Obviously, it is seen in a variety of ways depending on the individual books. Basically, God uses it as a medium to reveal His truths.

In my corner of the earth, the Bible was also called the Living Word of God. This meant that when an individual, such as myself, would read a particular passage, there could very well be an individual personal message from God in the words. Through meditation on a particular passage, one could be drawn to a deeper appreciation of God beyond the words themselves, or one could find inspiration, or one could see a solution to a problem. The Bible becomes Living in the sense that God and I are carrying on a conversation.

 

[aslan963]

One of the reasons I am Catholic and still not southern baptist is that I did not have to believe creationism anymore to be Catholic.

The world is older than 6,000 years or so. It is BILLIONS of years old.

Humankind and modern apes share a common ancestor that we evolved from.

Teaching/accepting evolution and being a Catholic is not contradictory.

For those of you trying to push a fundamentalist agenda, please quit trying to dumb down my religion.

Peace be with you.

 

[buffalo]

One of the reasons I am Catholic and still not southern baptist is that I did not have to believe creationism anymore to be Catholic.

The world is older than 6,000 years or so. It is BILLIONS of years old.

Humankind and modern apes share a common ancestor that we evolved from.

Teaching/accepting evolution and being a Catholic is not contradictory.

For those of you trying to push a fundamentalist agenda, please quit trying to dumb down my religion.

Peace be with you.

Since you so declared, the debate has now officially ended. There is nothing more to discuss. Thanks!

 

[PEPCIS]

Yes, Buffalo, that’s what I was trying to get to.

If you were in the market to buy an encyclopedia, would you buy “the original one” in the example above, or one that has been randomly corrupted many times (or even one time) in the hope of an extremely rare “improvement”?

Excellent point. I remember years ago buying a much older edition of Noah Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary because he was so meticulous and precise in his definitions, adding clarity to any research of a word. In that case, the older versions of his dictionary were not corrupted by the dumbing down of our culture - which is present in the newer versions.