Pregressive evolution?

[diggnate]

Hey guys,
I'm new to the board, but I've been reading up on the latest posts here, and instead of trying to jump into conversations already in progress (many of them drifting way off original topic), I decided to start a new topic.

First off, I'm a Christian, but am not a "creationist". I've come to accept (at least tentatively) some of the work of ID theorists such as Dembski, Behe, etc. However, as one who is dedicated to science, I'm not married to theories, as they are (by their very nature) falsifiable, therefore I have no reason, emotional or otherwise, to accept any scientific conclusion based on anything but the facts.

I generally accept the age of the universe/earth as best theorized by cosmologists and geologists, and accept the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for change in biological organisms.

I do, however, also take seriously the logical inadequacies of the best theories for the evolution of Irreducibly Complex features in biology, which I may discuss further in later threads.

Also, and this is my main concern presently, I have serious questions about the process by which natural selection works on in which to provide novel functionality to biological organisms. I think I read here that you guys don't consider Darwinian evolution to be a progressive process NECESSARILY, but that many times it is progressive.

My question is, what proof do you have that Darwinian evolution is an informationally positive process? Can you provide examples of net information gain simply by a series of random mutations, preserved by natural selection? Please let me know if I need to provide more details.

[Goat]

Can anyone provide a valid example of anything in nature that is irreducibly complex? If so, evolutionary theory falls apart. Many have given examples of organisms or parts of organisms that, because of a lacking knowledge or imagination, they cannot perceive as a sum of smaller steps; yet, this does not mean that said example is actually irreducibly complex.

Actually,, no you are wrong.... there are many things in nature that are irreducible complex. THe thing that Behe didn't bother with thinking about is the concept of 'scaffleding'..

There is the inner ear. There is the ability by bacteria to digest lactose. THe way evolution can create these system is documented. Therefore, the fact IRC systems can evolve naturally (and repeatedly), removed the idea that IRC systems are eviddence of I.D.

[diggnate]

OK. You are going to have to fill me in. What does “informationally positive organism" mean - more complex DNA molecule? More complex features of a structure like an eye? Or something else?

Can you define the term "information" in a way that it is meaningful to biology? Can you come up with a way to measure information. If not, what exactly do you mean by "information gain"?

Ok, this question was asked a few times so I'll start with this.
This can be defined a few different ways, but for the purposes of this conversation, let's keep it superficial, and try to avoid references to genetics (my particular area of interest) as much as possible. So, information can be defined as "function".

IOW, an "informationally positive" mutation would be one that added new function to an organism through the introduction of new features or the addition of function of pre-existing features (through the addition of novel genetic sequences, proteins, etc. but we're trying to avoid the nuts and bolts for the purposes of this conversation), all the while NOT removing function from other areas of the organism, which results in a NET INFORMATION GAIN.

Note what "informationally positive" does NOT mean:
IPM (informationally positive mutations) do not "replace" functions/features with less complex functions, the must ADD function with more complexity than the function/feature they are replacing (example, a "light sensitive patch" of skin must become more complex in order to gain function to eventually become an eye, and that does mean adding more genetic information, or new gene sequences).

IPM does not mean losing function to gain function. If I lose the ability to smell, but in it's place I can hear frequencies only dogs can hear, that is NOT an informationally positive mutation. I'm talking about NET INFORMATION GAIN.

Everyone knows that we can regressively evolve to adapt. We have countless examples of lab work that proves that (bacterial resistance, flightless birds, wingless beetles). I'm looking for the mutations that actually add function to an organism, without hurting pre-existing function in the process.

Anyone?

Here is a short analogy. Let's say I have 100 strings of five 0's
00000
00000
00000
etc.
About as simple as one can get.
Let's every day, each of the 0's has a .001 chance of turning into a 1. After a bunch of days I have something that looks like
01100
10100
11101
00010
Much more complex. Even with simple parts and a simple process.

More complex? Yes. More functional? Who knows? Sure genetic complexity can arise from a random process, but that's not what I asked. My question is, can random process actually produce novel functional information? Obviously, if such a thing could happen, Natural Selection would quickly snatch it up for survival, but the fact is, random processes such as mutation do WAY more harm than they do good (no, I'm not talking relative environmental benefits, I'm talking progressive/positive production), if they do any good at all.

Hope that was clear.

[Goat]

OK. You are going to have to fill me in. What does “informationally positive organism" mean - more complex DNA molecule? More complex features of a structure like an eye? Or something else?

Can you define the term "information" in a way that it is meaningful to biology? Can you come up with a way to measure information. If not, what exactly do you mean by "information gain"?

Ok, this question was asked a few times so I'll start with this.
This can be defined a few different ways, but for the purposes of this conversation, let's keep it superficial, and try to avoid references to genetics (my particular area of interest) as much as possible. So, information can be defined as "function".

IOW, an "informationally positive" mutation would be one that added new function to an organism through the introduction of new features or the addition of function of pre-existing features (through the addition of novel genetic sequences, proteins, etc. but we're trying to avoid the nuts and bolts for the purposes of this conversation), all the while NOT removing function from other areas of the organism, which results in a NET INFORMATION GAIN.

Note what "informationally positive" does NOT mean:
IPM (informationally positive mutations) do not "replace" functions/features with less complex functions, the must ADD function with more complexity than the function/feature they are replacing (example, a "light sensitive patch" of skin must become more complex in order to gain function to eventually become an eye, and that does mean adding more genetic information, or new gene sequences).

IPM does not mean losing function to gain function. If I lose the ability to smell, but in it's place I can hear frequencies only dogs can hear, that is NOT an informationally positive mutation. I'm talking about NET INFORMATION GAIN.

Everyone knows that we can regressively evolve to adapt. We have countless examples of lab work that proves that (bacterial resistance, flightless birds, wingless beetles). I'm looking for the mutations that actually add function to an organism, without hurting pre-existing function in the process.

Anyone?

Here is a short analogy. Let's say I have 100 strings of five 0's
00000
00000
00000
etc.
About as simple as one can get.
Let's every day, each of the 0's has a .001 chance of turning into a 1. After a bunch of days I have something that looks like
01100
10100
11101
00010
Much more complex. Even with simple parts and a simple process.

More complex? Yes. More functional? Who knows? Sure genetic complexity can arise from a random process, but that's not what I asked. My question is, can random process actually produce novel functional information? Obviously, if such a thing could happen, Natural Selection would quickly snatch it up for survival, but the fact is, random processes such as mutation do WAY more harm than they do good (no, I'm not talking relative environmental benefits, I'm talking progressive/positive production), if they do any good at all.



Hope that was clear.

Ok.. so new function is added. WOuld the ability to digest nylon count then? Ok.. so new function is added. WOuld the ability to digest nylon count then?

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

[diggnate]

Ok.. so new function is added. WOuld the ability to digest nylon count then?

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Sorry, but no. Here's why. When an organism has a certain number of genes, most of which we have mapped their protein coding function, and a section frame-shifts and adds novel function (the ability to digest nylon), you have to look at what damage that frame-shift (or any other type of mutation, but especially frame shift because of the numbers of base pairs are actually affected) actually did. In the case of the nylon bug, it diminished metabolic efficiency.

Not only this, but the particular bacteria you're talking about seems to have an uncanny ability to adapt over small generations due to the nature of it's gene sequence. It's almost as if it was "pre-programmed" to have the capacity to adapt quickly.

However, it is still under the confines of majority coding genes, which means that it would be very difficult to gain function without losing function, and thus achieving a true net information gain. Not only is it theoretically difficult, it has yet to be demonstrated.

[Furrowed Brow]

I think I’m still not quite getting you diggnate. So bear with me.

(example, a "light sensitive patch" of skin must become more complex in order to gain function to eventually become an eye, and that does mean adding more genetic information, or new gene sequences).

Are you saying that improvement in eye functionality is an example of a information positive process.? I guess you are not because you are asking for examples. But is the eye not a good example of what you are looking for? Or what part of that story fails your test?

My question is, can random process actually produce novel functional information?

I think that this question needs to be examined. Random process do not by themselves produce novel function. A function being an interaction between organism and environment. It takes two to tango. If mutation took place in a vacuum there would be no functional improvement no matter how complex the mutation. So the question should be...

Can a random process actually produce an organism that can then interact in a novel way with its environment?

But what do we mean by novel?

Take the example of light sensitive skin cells. Lets say there is a mutation that means the next generation has more of these cells. This mutation is not “novel“, as it only develops upon an established trait.

The original mutation that first gained light sensitive cells would be down to random mutation, but the light sensitivity only matters if there is indeed light. This mutation would be of no functional use to a permanent cave dweller. By your definition this mutation would them be informationally neutral.

Again take the example of the light sensitive cells on the skin. If that patch of skin were softer than the surrounding tissue, it could be argued self protection functionality has been lost at the expense of gaining light sensitivity. But also by definition, if light sensitive cells are advantageous the functional advantage they provide out ways the loss of tough skin. Thus light sensitive cells would always be informational positive, if they are selected for.

[diggnate]

Are you saying that improvement in eye functionality is an example of a information positive process.? I guess you are not because you are asking for examples. But is the eye not a good example of what you are looking for? Or what part of that story fails your test?

No, the eye example is a historical, not observable example. I'm looking for an observable specimen.

I think that this question needs to be examined. Random process do not by themselves produce novel function.

They must. Yes, it is selection that preserves the novelties, but mutation produces them. Sure the term "novelties" is dependent on the relative environment, but that still doesn't negate the role of the mutations in the original production.

But what do we mean by novel?

Take the example of light sensitive skin cells. Lets say there is a mutation that means the next generation has more of these cells. This mutation is not “novel“, as it only develops upon an established trait.

The original mutation that first gained light sensitive cells would be down to random mutation, but the light sensitivity only matters if there is indeed light. This mutation would be of no functional use to a permanent cave dweller. By your definition this mutation would them be informationally neutral.

Again take the example of the light sensitive cells on the skin. If that patch of skin were softer than the surrounding tissue, it could be argued self protection functionality has been lost at the expense of gaining light sensitivity. But also by definition, if light sensitive cells are advantageous the functional advantage they provide out ways the loss of tough skin. Thus light sensitive cells would always be informational positive, if they are selected for.

Yes, you would absolutely have to say that by losing the original protective nature of the cells, you have lost function, but that's a single novelty. In the lineage between a single light sensitive patch and the mammal eye, you've got terribly large amounts of net information gains by gaining efficiency, motility, focus, depth, nervous system integration, etc. Eventually, you would HAVE to gain truly novel informationlly positive function (net information gain).

But again, the evolution of the eye is a historical question. I'm looking for a real life example of a novel function produced by a net information gain (not gross).

[Goat]

Ok.. so new function is added. WOuld the ability to digest nylon count then?

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Sorry, but no. Here's why. When an organism has a certain number of genes, most of which we have mapped their protein coding function, and a section frame-shifts and adds novel function (the ability to digest nylon), you have to look at what damage that frame-shift (or any other type of mutation, but especially frame shift because of the numbers of base pairs are actually affected) actually did. In the case of the nylon bug, it diminished metabolic efficiency.

Not only this, but the particular bacteria you're talking about seems to have an uncanny ability to adapt over small generations due to the nature of it's gene sequence. It's almost as if it was "pre-programmed" to have the capacity to adapt quickly.

However, it is still under the confines of majority coding genes, which means that it would be very difficult to gain function without losing function, and thus achieving a true net information gain. Not only is it theoretically difficult, it has yet to be demonstrated.

WHy not? it is NEW function. It is something that this particular bacteria never had before. No other bacteria in the entire world has this ability. It needed a gene to digest nylon, it needed a gene to allow the nylon into the cell, and it needed a gene to regulate the production of the enzyme when nylon is present.

All bacteria have the 'ability to adopt over small generations'. THat is known as evolution. It gained function 'the abilty to digest nylon' without losing function.

How does that not fit your description? Isn't all evolution small changes that accumlate, accordign to the TOE?

It doesn't seem to me that you really have a good definition of 'information' , and how the amount of 'information' can be measured.

Can you show me an algorthem that measures information that this bacteria has the same amount of 'information' before that mutation than it did afterwards?? Something that is testable... repeatable, and falsifyable.

If you can't give me that, then no matter what example I bring up, you would be able to say 'That is nto what I meant'.

[diggnate]

WHy not? it is NEW function. It is something that this particular bacteria never had before. No other bacteria in the entire world has this ability. It needed a gene to digest nylon, it needed a gene to allow the nylon into the cell, and it needed a gene to regulate the production of the enzyme when nylon is present.

This is not a matter of "that's not what I meant", this is pure and simple, "that's not what I said". I made it clear that I'm looking for an example of an organism that, through mutation, has a net information (function) gain. The nylon bug does not. More below.

All bacteria have the 'ability to adopt over small generations'. THat is known as evolution. It gained function 'the abilty to digest nylon' without losing function.

How does that not fit your description? Isn't all evolution small changes that accumlate, accordign to the TOE?

I don't question organisms abilities to "change", I'm simply asking for an example of a progressive change.

It gained function 'the abilty to digest nylon' without losing function.

Go back and read the documentation of the nylon bug. It DID LOSE FUNCTION. It lost metabolic efficiency, while losing 50% of its ability to break down other composites. That is NOT net information gain, and it certainly IS NOT a net gain in functionality.

It doesn't seem to me that you really have a good definition of 'information' , and how the amount of 'information' can be measured.

Can you show me an algorthem that measures information that this bacteria has the same amount of 'information' before that mutation than it did afterwards?? Something that is testable... repeatable, and falsifyable.

If you can't give me that, then no matter what example I bring up, you would be able to say 'That is nto what I meant'.

No, I made it clear what I meant. Yes, information has a lot to do with the numbers of functional, protein coding genes, but that is easily translatable to function. How is that not clear?
Net = the ratio of amount gained to amount lost.
Gross = the total amount gained.

[Goat]

WHy not? it is NEW function. It is something that this particular bacteria never had before. No other bacteria in the entire world has this ability. It needed a gene to digest nylon, it needed a gene to allow the nylon into the cell, and it needed a gene to regulate the production of the enzyme when nylon is present.

This is not a matter of "that's not what I meant", this is pure and simple, "that's not what I said". I made it clear that I'm looking for an example of an organism that, through mutation, has a net information (function) gain. The nylon bug does not. More below.

All bacteria have the 'ability to adopt over small generations'. THat is known as evolution. It gained function 'the abilty to digest nylon' without losing function.

How does that not fit your description? Isn't all evolution small changes that accumlate, accordign to the TOE?

I don't question organisms abilities to "change", I'm simply asking for an example of a progressive change.

It gained function 'the abilty to digest nylon' without losing function.

Go back and read the documentation of the nylon bug. It DID LOSE FUNCTION. It lost metabolic efficiency, while losing 50% of its ability to break down other composites. That is NOT net information gain, and it certainly IS NOT a net gain in functionality.

It doesn't seem to me that you really have a good definition of 'information' , and how the amount of 'information' can be measured.

Can you show me an algorthem that measures information that this bacteria has the same amount of 'information' before that mutation than it did afterwards?? Something that is testable... repeatable, and falsifyable.

If you can't give me that, then no matter what example I bring up, you would be able to say 'That is nto what I meant'.

No, I made it clear what I meant. Yes, information has a lot to do with the numbers of functional, protein coding genes, but that is easily translatable to function. How is that not clear?
Net = the ratio of amount gained to amount lost.
Gross = the total amount gained.

Define 'progressive change' It seems to me that the abilty to sudden digest a substance that you couldn't digest before is a change.. and it certainly is progressive, since it did not have that ability before.

Maybe if you define what you mean by 'progressive change' better. I asked, and then you said 'provide new function. Digesting nylon is new function, but you said'
'that doesn't meet my criteria'.

Define your criteria better. It seems to me that you shifted goal posts.

[diggnate]

Define 'progressive change' It seems to me that the abilty to sudden digest a substance that you couldn't digest before is a change.. and it certainly is progressive, since it did not have that ability before.

Maybe if you define what you mean by 'progressive change' better. I asked, and then you said 'provide new function. Digesting nylon is new function, but you said'
'that doesn't meet my criteria'.

Define your criteria better. It seems to me that you shifted goal posts.

Progressive? OK, let me try this. Do you consider it "progressive" to buy a $100,000 dollar yacht, 100% financed? Has your net worth gone up?

So why is it that you insist that when an organism gains a function at the expense of another function, an net information (function) gain?

Yes, I admit, a gross addition of information has been added, but the organism has lost a function in the process, and a pretty important one at that. The bug's metabolic system is now severely less efficient, and on top of that, it can no longer digest half of what it used to! NET INFORMATION (function) LOSS!!!

If this is your best example of an informationally positive mutation, I'm disappointed.