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]

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.

Ok then.. how about a mutation to be able to digest lactose? This one has been reproduced in the lab, and as a matter of fact is a standard test.

http://millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

[diggnate]

Ok then.. how about a mutation to be able to digest lactose? This one has been reproduced in the lab, and as a matter of fact is a standard test.

http://millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

Again, take a closer look at this research and see what function was deleted. In all these "proofs", there may be an addition of a function, but remember, we're not talking about simply adding function, as I've stated repeatedly. When you get new functions, others (important others) are deleted. Obviously, this line of supposed "functional addition" cannot go on forever, or you'll end up mutating more vital sections of the genome, and rendering the organism useless for things like reproductive competitiveness, or metabolic efficiency.

In each of these experiments, the organism does indeed have new function, but is rendered weaker as a result, either by inhibiting efficiency, removing metabolic ability, or in some cases, rendering them unable to reproduce (oh, but at least they can digest something new, woopie!)

In any case, you've got a limited number of genes on which to mutate for new information. You can't simply erase the same section, removing key functions of these organisms, and expect me to concede that the net information weight is positive, just because bacteria are able to digest one thing instead of another.

[Goat]

Ok then.. how about a mutation to be able to digest lactose? This one has been reproduced in the lab, and as a matter of fact is a standard test.

http://millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

Again, take a closer look at this research and see what function was deleted. In all these "proofs", there may be an addition of a function, but remember, we're not talking about simply adding function, as I've stated repeatedly. When you get new functions, others (important others) are deleted. Obviously, this line of supposed "functional addition" cannot go on forever, or you'll end up mutating more vital sections of the genome, and rendering the organism useless for things like reproductive competitiveness, or metabolic efficiency.

So what?? It was deleted artifically. The system was rendered useless.

You then had an individual without the information to digest lactose. True or false?

This indivudual then reproduced, and eventually, the bacteria matt that it was the originator was numbered in the many millions. Then the environment was changed, so only lactose was available. The vast majority of the organisms died.
THose they were left not only had mutated to have a gene to digest lactose, but evolved more genes to regulate it. None of these new genes were involved in the
original organisms (pre-gene deletion) of being able to digest lactose.

In each of these experiments, the organism does indeed have new function, but is rendered weaker as a result, either by inhibiting efficiency, removing metabolic ability, or in some cases, rendering them unable to reproduce (oh, but at least they can digest something new, woopie!)

In any case, you've got a limited number of genes on which to mutate for new information. You can't simply erase the same section, removing key functions of these organisms, and expect me to concede that the net information weight is positive, just because bacteria are able to digest one thing instead of another.

IN thise case, the ability to digest lactose evolved without removing any other function. Yes, the organism had that one gene deleted, but had to evolve a brand new system to digest lactose,and regulate the production of the enzyme, as well as allow it to permate the cell wall. Three parts had to evolve to replace the once function.

Yes, you are moving the goal posts.

Two samples that you are rejecting out of hand.

And you STILL have not given me a working defintion of 'progressive evolution', and a way to measeure 'net information gain'.

Let's see those quantified before I give you more samples.

[diggnate]

Again, take a closer look at this research and see what function was deleted...

So what?? It was deleted artifically. The system was rendered useless.

There was a misunderstanding here. I'll address it tomorrow.

Yes, you are moving the goal posts.

Two samples that you are rejecting out of hand.

And you STILL have not given me a working defintion of 'progressive evolution', and a way to measeure 'net information gain'.

Let's see those quantified before I give you more samples.

No, I am not.

I rejected them because they did not demonstrate the addition of function without the deletion of other function. Yes, new function, but a weaker organism as a result. Is that what you call evolution? Would you consider that progressive, regardless of the (evidently limitless) definitions?

I want to avoid talking genetics as much as possible, so I'm speaking in terms of function. Do you understand what "net gain" means? if so, then just plug in "function" and you have your workable definition.

Quantify? I already have. The ratio of new function to deleted function. Is the net function (information) weight positive?

For example, (and this is not entirely accurate, but for the sake of argument) if a bug suddenly gains the ability to metabolize oak leaves, but in the process loses mobile, reproductive, or metabolic efficiency, that is NOT a net information gain. If anything it's informationally neutral, and depending on how badly the loss was, could be an informationally negative mutation.

I don't know how I can be any clearer.

[Goat]

Again, take a closer look at this research and see what function was deleted...

So what?? It was deleted artifically. The system was rendered useless.

There was a misunderstanding here. I'll address it tomorrow.

Yes, you are moving the goal posts.

Two samples that you are rejecting out of hand.

And you STILL have not given me a working defintion of 'progressive evolution', and a way to measeure 'net information gain'.

Let's see those quantified before I give you more samples.

No, I am not.

I rejected them because they did not demonstrate the addition of function without the deletion of other function. Yes, new function, but a weaker organism as a result. Is that what you call evolution? Would you consider that progressive, regardless of the (evidently limitless) definitions?

I want to avoid talking genetics as much as possible, so I'm speaking in terms of function. Do you understand what "net gain" means? if so, then just plug in "function" and you have your workable definition.

Quantify? I already have. The ratio of new function to deleted function. Is the net function (information) weight positive?

For example, (and this is not entirely accurate, but for the sake of argument) if a bug suddenly gains the ability to metabolize oak leaves, but in the process loses mobile, reproductive, or metabolic efficiency, that is NOT a net information gain. If anything it's informationally neutral, and depending on how badly the loss was, could be an informationally negative mutation.

I don't know how I can be any clearer.

Yes.. how do you 'test' for 'new function.. and to make sure there is a 'net information gain' vs 'information replacement' or 'information loss'.

You are not coming up with anytyhing but vague terms otherwise.

If you don't know who to be clearer, could it be that it is a nonsenseical claim to begin with?

[diggnate]

Yes.. how do you 'test' for 'new function.. and to make sure there is a 'net information gain' vs 'information replacement' or 'information loss'.

You are not coming up with anytyhing but vague terms otherwise.

If you don't know who to be clearer, could it be that it is a nonsenseical claim to begin with?

Excuse me? You've been talking about "new functions" for the better part of this conversation. We know what a "new function" is, do we not?

Loss of function? Let's see, loss of function, is when a function is lost.

Information replacement (informationally neutral mutation) is when there is both a gain of new function by mutation, and consequentially a loss of another function. This is, by definition, not progressive (you know, 1 step forward, 1 step back).

Information loss (informationally negative mutation) happens either during a deleterious mutation where a function is lost, or a point/phase shift/etc. mutation where the total function lost exceeds the function gained. (1 step forward, 2 back)

Just replace the word "information" with "assets" and use that stuff you learned in accounting class. More assets, asset gain. Less assets, asset loss. Gain more assets than you lose, net asset gain. Lost more assets than you gain, asset loss. But instead of the free market, we're talking about biological mutations. Make sense?

If you're asking how to quantify or define "function" (which is what I think you're actually trying to get to), then I might be able to help you. I'll sleep on it and see what I can pull together by tomorrow. Honestly, I thought by using the word "function" it would make things easier. Obviously I was wrong. Is it really that hard to define what a function is, and subsequently how to measure a net gain in function? Oh well.

[Furrowed Brow]

, 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 informationally positive function (net information gain).

The problem I am having is that it seems to me that trying to define evolution in terms of information gain is a bit nebulous to say the least.

Being easy to eat is a function. Thus a gain in the ability to see will mean a decrease in the ability to be eaten. So an organism that can interact with its environment by being less edible than its predictors sees a decrease in its being edible functionality. Thus there is some way of looking at the problem in terms of functionality that leaves the books always balanced.

Unless of course you mean “informational positive” equals “functional success“. Success defined as passing your genes on to the next generation.

The functional advantage of having light sensitivity outweighs the functional disadvantage of having a delicate area of skin. Thus natural selection decide which are the “functionally positive”. If “informationally positive” means something different then it is not a concept needed to explain natural selection.

Ok…so what of random selection. Well the random mutations throw up changes in the phenotype. The interaction between phenotype and the environment says whether there has been any changes in organism-environment interaction, and natural selection determines which are the functionally negative traits.

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!!!

Your example is revealing I feel. From an evolution point of view:If the $100,000 dollar yacht gets you laid more often, then your gene spreading functionality goes up. However if you take the yacht out to see, sink it and drown, your functionality goes down.

If we follow though on the metaphor then the 100% finance stands for those other functions offset against the gain of the yacht. As long as those other functions are not equal in the amount they get you laid, and are in fact less in that respect, then there is an overall getting laid functional gain. As long as the yacht does not get you killed in quicker than the other things you might have spent your money on, then the getting you killed function is neutral. If you had not bought the yacht and instead bought a £100,000 dollar sports car, that got you laid just as much as the yacht, but also gets you killed quicker, then there is another functional play off to be calculated. The final arbiter of functionally positive being natural selection.

And the example of Nylon eating bacteria? Well if it works for them, then it is a functional success. It is also a informationally positive, as there is an increase in the information required for functional success.

I think diggnate you need to say some more about whther "informationally positive" does or does not mean "information positive to the success of gene propogation". If it does not, why do we need to consider it?

[diggnate]

Unless of course you mean “informational positive” equals “functional success“. Success defined as passing your genes on to the next generation.

No, a functional success through a mutation is, unless I'm not aware of some evidence, an informationally negative process, that is, the organism loses some function or feature that was holding them back in their new environment, or at the most, gains a new feature at the expense of another.

For instance, in the event of a human famine, one boy is born with the ability to digest readily abundant materials such as tree bark. However, in the process, he loses metabolic efficiency for other materials such as meat and/or other vegetation, and he has an immune system deficiency. Sure, he survives (beneficial), but he's rendered a weak shadow of the former human race. That is an informationally negative mutation. The same can be said of the nylon bug. Sure, in a nylon rich environment, those organisms that have gained the ability to digest nylon are at an advantage, but their digestive ability has been diminished regardless of their new abilities. In fact, they lost function BECAUSE of this new ability. Is it not clear that this is a net loss of functional information (both in genes and in function)?

In order for evolution to be a true explanation, it has to account for the addition of information, not just deleterious adaptations. I wouldn't be asking for proof if it wasn't necessary for the validity of the theory. If you are going to make the claim that every biological organism is derivative of organisms, you have to be able to demonstrate more than neutral or deleterious mutations. You have to show a true net gain in both genetic information, and biological function (the result of functional information). If you can't, then you don't have a theory.

Your example is revealing I feel. From an evolution point of view:If the $100,000 dollar yacht gets you laid more often, then your gene spreading functionality goes up. However if you take the yacht out to see, sink it and drown, your functionality goes down.

Actually, it is your statement that is revealing.

First of all, the analogy wasn't meant to be taken that far, but for the sake of argument, we'll run with it.

I did not claim, not anywhere, that informationally neutral mutations could not be selectively beneficial (in fact, I made that statement multiple times). My claim was that informationally neutral or negative (that is, being $100,000 dollars richer for having the boat, but $100,000 in debt = neutral, or buying a $50,000 boat for $100,000 bucks = negative, brings down your net worth) mutations can not possible account for the addition of the new information necessary for the progressive evolution from single-celled organisms to humans. Eventually, adaptations that are informationally negative will have to cease or else you start dabbling with vital gene function. You will have to gain net information if you want to evolve to the level of functional information complexity that humans possess.

And the example of Nylon eating bacteria? Well if it works for them, then it is a functional success

yes, functional success. information loss might be a selective advantage, but it is still a loss nonetheless and cannot be counted as proof for upward sloping evolution. It's a fine example of deleterious adaptation, but nothing more.

I think diggnate you need to say some more about whther "informationally positive" does or does not mean "information positive to the success of gene propogation". If it does not, why do we need to consider it?

Because it is necessary to explain the informationally positive gradient we see in parts of the "tree of life". You simply can't ignore it.

[QED]

Hi diggnate

I wonder what you make of the informationally positive gradient we see coming out of Genetic Programing? This field models itslef directly on the principles of natural selection and, after sufficient numbers of cycles turns any old random set of instructions into something that approaches the selection criteria. These Automated Invention Machines sure do get results, churning out Patentable inventions.

There's no mystery about how they work, Darwin's theory

[Furrowed Brow]

No, a functional success through a mutation is, unless I'm not aware of some evidence, an informationally negative process, that is, the organism loses some function or feature that was holding them back in their new environment, or at the most, gains a new feature at the expense of another.

Yes. But that skates around my point. Any change in the phenotype means by definition the phenotype is now something it was not. A mutation of a gene means that some part of the old gene sequence is lost. The light sensitive skin cells replace the tougher skin. It is impossible to find any example of change without being able to point out that something else has been lost.

For instance, in the event of a human famine, one boy is born with the ability to digest readily abundant materials such as tree bark. However, in the process, he loses metabolic efficiency for other materials such as meat and/or other vegetation, and he has an immune system deficiency.

Ok lets go with that. The boy is a bark eater. Maybe a good one. But this just becomes a more sophisticated example of the light sensitive cell problem. The logic this example relies on is the same. However, you are weighting your example. Famine means there is a poor food environment which in turn means an information loss in the environment? Thus there is an information loss in the possible interactions between boy and environment. An informational rich environment (one with lots of different possible food sources) would give advantage to those boys and girls with the phenotype best suited to exploit those food groups.

So what information loss occurs when humans gained the ability to digest milk? ( Adult Milk Tolerance).

Sure, he survives (beneficial), but he's rendered a weak shadow of the former human race. That is an informationally negative mutation.

True. But that degradation in information is environmentally lead. Famine being an informational poor environmental influence.

The same can be said of the nylon bug. Sure, in a nylon rich environment, those organisms that have gained the ability to digest nylon are at an advantage, but their digestive ability has been diminished regardless of their new abilities. In fact, they lost function BECAUSE of this new ability

Ok. I’m not an expert on bacteria. But using Wikipedia it seems that the original Flavobacterium found in a pond outside a nylon factory had the ability to digest nylon. Whilst scientist generated Pseuodmonas bacteria by forcing them to eating nothing but Nylon. In either case the bacteria learnt to eat in a novel way what was in front of them. The information content of this process determined by the information content of their environment.

Has anyone tried to force feed bacteria nylon in the summer and polyster in the winter. Would a nylon eating bacteria also able to eat polyester be the sort of thing that counts?

If you are going to make the claim that every biological organism is derivative of organisms, you have to be able to demonstrate more than neutral or deleterious mutations. You have to show a true net gain in both genetic information, and biological function (the result of functional information). If you can't, then you don't have a theory.

No. There are self replicating molecules we call DNA or genes and these are causal agents, that cause the phenotype to take on certain appearances and traits. The information content of these traits is determined by the environment. To go back a step. Light sensitive skin cells on a cave dweller, will not allow the cave dweller to functionally interact with its environment in a more complex way. Thus this genetic mutation contains no information.

You have to demonstrate how mutations across generations allows a phenotypes features and traits to adapt to its environment. Which is exactly what evolution theory sets out to do.

yes, functional success. information loss might be a selective advantage, but it is still a loss nonetheless and cannot be counted as proof for upward sloping evolution.

But up slope evolution is a gain in complexity of the features of the phenotype, allowing it to interact in a more complex way with its environment. Which is just adaptation to its environment.

You are trying to add a further conceptual layer of information gain. Frankly a concept that is empty of meaning.

Because it is necessary to explain the informationally positive gradient we see in parts of the "tree of life". You simply can't ignore it.

Ignore what? Complexity? Well that is Climbing Mount improbable. Information content? Well that is no more than functional complexity. Which in turn is dependent on the features of the phenotype and its environment. Information loss? That is relative to the analysis you are making. As already said. Every change, in some respect, or at some level, can be argued to entail information loss. Thus it is an empty notion.