Anyway, BA77:

Those certainly are beneficial in the circumstances. The big problem for evolution, however, is not to degrade genes (Darwinian random mutations can do that very well!) but to make the coherent, constructive changes needed to build new systems. The bottom line is that the beneficial mutations reported in the new Science paper most likely are degradatory mutations, and so don’t address the challenges outlined in The Edge of Evolution.

In general, there are definitely examples of “beneficial mutations in relation to fitness”, which is exactly Bob’s point. I see the precise distinction you are trying to make, but I think you are parsing things too far and making this conversation confusing. You are looking for examples of mutations that are not only beneficial in relation to fitness but also in relation to the progressive/positive creation/heavy modification of existing CSI. But that’s a different thing than the generally used “beneficial mutations”. If there is a generally-accepted term that encapsulates what you are looking for I’m not aware of it. It’s not CSI in general since that could be negative in relation to fitness. For example, if I were to tack a spoiler (like on a vehicle) and a retractable anchor onto a bird I think that would not be too beneficial…

A blog thread evolves quickly. There must be some intelligence in the system!

Very many thanks for the helpful advice from:

bornagain77
and
gpuccio
and
vjtorley

Cheers

Gavin

Re PNAs. Here is Wiki’s opening:

. . . PNA is not known to occur naturally in existing life on Earth but is artificially synthesized and used in some biological research and medical treatments . . .

In short, all known occurrences of PNA are the products of highly intelligent agents, and are shaped and constrained by highly informational requirements. (Similarly, you may wish to see Shapiro’s recent Sci Am article on RNA world. I discuss this in my always linked.)

Next, the issue on effective information content is of course coding and functionality. PNAs function in that context and so if we are seeing yet another proposed OOL scenario, we need to ask where the underlying code and algorithms came from. That takes us rapidly beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold at which chance + necessity lose power to credibly account for the origin of the observed phenomenon.

Now, you go on to inquire as to the concept information.

Two senses are here: information- carrying capacity which can easily enough be measured in bits [so-called Shannon information], and what we may describe as functionally specific information, i.e what fits in with codes, algorithms and makes a difference to the outcomes for a system in an environment. This, I discuss in Section A my always linked.

BTW, itr woulde be highly unliukely that there is little or no redundancy even in a 300 k minimal organism, as redundancy is the key defence against the inevitable noise. The very genetic code itself has in it significant redundancy, e.g. for certain codes, a change of one character in the codon will shift to a very similar amino acid; of course, this soon runs into limits, such that we see the fear of inducing mutations that is a haunting issue in a world of exposure to radioactivity.

On the PNA information issue, I make no claims to be a biochemist. But, if there is a definable code using PNA’s as characters [that can vary within the place freely across an alphabet] then the lengthening of a chain would allow for greater information-carrying capacity.

I observe again that we have a situation that if PNA was the first code-bearing system of life, why is it that there was a changeover inthe chemistry? Where is the empirical observation in the natural world to back up the proposed narrative on OOL?

And so on.

In short, is this the latest version of the Miller-Urey Expt style hyping of limited and ultimately irrelevant results again, through highly speculative just-so stories?

The hints and clues in even the Wiki article point that way . . .

GEM of TKI

Good for you Larry. Now why not take on something more substantial. The changes you reference all presuppose the existence DNA. How about an explanation for the source of genetic material and the information stored in them. And remember- this is not about gaps. It’s about no intelligence allowed.

I don’t know, if he means what you think he means, then I’ll let him defend his logic, since I don’t agree.

Microevolution is accepted and beneficial mutations can exist; the questions are: how frequent, what type, and how complex? The examples drawn from anti-biotic resistance are not the right type, since they destroy (in the cases looked at) pre-existing function in the organism. This can be seen in the fact that when the anti-biotic is removed, the unmutated strain will again take over the population. They are also usually very simple. (See Behe’s EOE, and how only a few steps are too much of a hurdle for bacteria to bypass…)

I’ll let BA77 finish the discussion. I was just trying to maybe help you guys understand his points, but I’m sure he can speak for himself.

I’m seeing his argument as suggesting that a mutation that could cause pointier teeth in a predator (even a microsocopic predator) isn’t beneficial, since it is detrimental to the prey.

Since microevolution is accepted within the scope of ID, isn’t it necessary to also accept within ID that beneficial mutations must occur with some realistic frequency?

I think BA77 means a mutation that doesn’t simultaneously damage other pre-existing function.

The analogy from Behe’s book is blowing up a bridge to stop an invading army. Sure, you saved the city, but you only did so by damaging part of it. That is trench warfare, not an arms race, and is no model for creative evolution.

This isn’t meant to be a “No True Scotsman” argument is it? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman“. I’m assuming that “benefical” really means something, so that arguments, such as BA77′s claims about beneficial mutations can actually be quantified and supported.

How about you Bob can you produce a “truly” beneficial mutation that can withstand honest and intense scrutiny?
There is money for you if you can!

Possibly, depending on your definition of “truly beneficial”. It’s clearly different to mine.

Bob