351 thoughts on “Biological Information”

1. colewd: If we disabled this mechanism (DNA mismatch repair) what do you think would happen?

   More mutations would happen(like they did in the LTEE when one of the proofreading mechanisms became disabled due to mutation), the average fitness of the population would go down compared to the population with functional proofreading, at least for a time because compensatory mutational changes would fix in the population (which also happened and is still ongoing in the LTEE). Eventually proofreading would re-evolve given enough time.

   That’s what I think would happen.

2. colewd: When I see the opposition use logical fallacies like straight assertions, circular reasoning or ad hominem arguments as challenges then I know I am on the right track.

   I know I’m on the right track when I agree with the evidence.

   Interesting that you simply rely on the reactions of others, especially when you generally lack the ability to judge those properly.

   I think challenging your own ideas and world-view in general is a good idea.

   Actually, considering issues independently of your own prejudices is what is a good idea, even though it is not easy to get to that point. Reacting against whatever threatens your beliefs as you do is merely an exercise of your defense mechanisms.

   Glen Davidson

3. Corneel: There is, in principle, nothing that distinguishes purifying selection from positive natural selection. We just use the word “purifying” to indicate that the fitness variation that is acted upon is generated by recurrent mutations but it is the very same process that drives novel beneficial mutations to fixation.

   We established there’s no such thing as “natural selection” and certainly no “fitness” whatsoever. Why do you keep bringing this back when you lost that argument?
   There is no “beneficial mutations” either. Release Lenski’s E.coli in the wild and citrate metabolism disappears as does eventually antibiotic resistance outside of hospitals. All mutations are deleterious or trade-offs.

   Rumraket: I’m disputing basically every single thing in the OP.

   The toddler has spoken and his tantrum better be taken seriously this time. No arguments, no problem. He’s The Toddler!

   Erik: Nonlin.org: That’s what paragraph 3 explains.

   No, it doesn’t explain. It merely asserts, and there are obvious objections to the assertion, which I laid out to you.

   This is the argument:
   “Media can be anything including any collection of atoms and, without a decoding key, the same media can support an infinity of data. For instance, a DNA chain encodes one set of data when read left to right, another when read in reverse, yet another when read pair-by-pair, and so on. But in living organisms, DNA actually encodes specific information that is uniquely decoded with a key. Furthermore, the information in the DNA is also redundantly encoded to ensure its long term integrity. Aside from DNA and RNA, we can observe many other information systems in nature (with decoding keys such as pheromones, antigens, and hormones), but all are limited to the living.”
   Do you disagree with any of these statements? Which one? Do you disagree with how these arguments drive the conclusion: “The biologic cellular system is strikingly similar to human built autonomous information systems and unlike anything else observable in the inert universe.”? Which part of the conclusion?
   Tantrums are not valid arguments.

   Rumraket: I have never come into contact with immaterial information.
   1. All information I have ever come into contact with was in the form of a physical medium or physical interactions between physical entities. You will need to demonstrate that there is such a thing as immaterial information.

   But DNA carries what looks like computer code, aka designer information aka an executable file. And no, DNA is not the whole executable file.

   2. It doesn’t matter what you think DNA “looks like” to the question of whether is contains information or not.

   The Creator is the logical explanation based on our experience.

   3. This is you just making an assertion again. Prove it, prove the assertion. Start with uncontroversial premises and work towards the conclusion. Don’t start from “information is immaterial”, as I reject that premise. You will need to convince me that information is immaterial first.

   What is your scenario for biological information? And try to base that on observations, not on the Darwinist religion dogma.

   4. Mutations and natural selection. And those are observations.

   Looks like you’re disputing this: “The same media (matter) may contain data representing information for one or more users, or random noise if the same bits of data have been randomly configured. Furthermore, without a deciphering key, one user’s information is random noise to another (like bird songs to unrelated birds). Information can be encoded in different ways (like distinct languages), resulting in unequal data sets.” But where are your arguments?

   5. My argument is that the conclusion “therefore there is no information in X (which could be tree rings)”, or “data isn’t/doesn’t contain information”m doesn’t follow from what you write. YOU are the one who needs to make an actual argument. The conclusion you are seeking to make, that data isn’t information and that information is immaterial, doesn’t follow from what you write above. I want you to write a syllogism with premises and a conclusion, so the logic of what you are saying can be properly analyzed.

   Nonlin: No. DNA can be executed (like code) by the biologic machine, but it has been encoded by an intelligent agent and we (the other intelligent agents) can decode it to extract information such as: “what protein will this DNA segment produce?”

   6. There isn’t anything we know from which it follows that DNA has been encoded by an intelligent agent. As such, what you stated really was just a mere assertion.

   Again, you need to construct a proper argument, a syllogism, so that we can analyze the premise and the logic that leads you to conclude that the information in DNA was “encoded by an intelligent agent”.

   7. Don’t just respond by making another long list of assertions. Start with uncontroversial premises we both accept, and then derive the conclusion from there.

   8. Shallit has shown that under a rigorous mathematical definition of information accepted by mathematicians and computer scientists, DNA can be considered information, and that with this definition in mind, it can be shown that basic evolutionary mechanisms like gene duplication, substitution, deletion, and rearrangement, evolution can create new information and increase or decrease information.

   1. Really? Where does the idea of a circle reside in the material world? You’re delusional. And is there such thing as matter anyway? When you drill down into matter, you find it’s all fields, energy, and other immaterial properties. You should know the photon has zero rest mass so perhaps “material” and “immaterial” are in fact one and the same.
   2. It matters very much what DNA looks like. This is how research is done. Even your materialist prophets are in agreement with me here. Your tantrum is useless.
   3. It’s all demonstrated in paragraph 2. Can you read? I write the conclusion first and supporting arguments after. It’s all there.
   4. No such thing as “natural selection”. Was demonstrated in the other OP.
   5. Everyone except you knows that data is not information. Get a grip. It’s also explained for novices in paragraph 2. Toddlers will still deny.
   6. We don’t know for sure, but all evidence points in that direction and no other direction. That’s just how the scientific method works. Not who’s louder and controls the corrupt education system.
   7. Everything that is not bold (the conclusions) is supporting evidence that is uncontroversial. Learn to read.
   8. You either argue Shallit’s points with solid evidence or buzz off. We’re not discussing your opinions about others.

4. Nonlin.org: We established there’s no such thing as “natural selection” and certainly no “fitness” whatsoever. Why do you keep bringing this back when you lost that argument?

   I seem to have forgotten where I conceded such a thing. Could you provide a link, please?

   While we are on the subject. Are you actually denying that purifying selection exists? Do you see a way that for example developmental lethals will make it into the next generation? If that is the case, then that would be most interesting and you should tell us all about it.

5. colewd: Here is Gpuccio’s reply.

   So I can see “more then 1000”. What was actually asked for was a demonstration of how a particular value was determined, step by step. Ideally we want to perform the demonstration before and after a mutation, and determine if the value as calculated by the procedure went up, down or stayed the same.

   Would it be possible for you to ask for such a demonstration? One where we end up with two independently calculated values?

6. Corneel,
   Bill

   Through serendipity you can get an adaption through random change but eventually the laws of statistics result in loss of information. This is John and Bill’s argument and I have not seen a reasonable challenge yet.
   Corneel
   Adaptations are NOT fixed through serendipity but by the requirement that “functional variation needs to be minimized”, which means tossing out the ancestral (less fit) alleles. This is the same process that will prevent that information from being lost, namely selection in its purifying role. Bill Basener and John Sanford are wrong. Time to get your story straight, Bill.

   We agree that biological processes are reducing variation. Some common ground has been achieved.

   What is your belief on the amount of human DNA that is functional?

7. Nonlin.org: Where does the idea of a circle reside in the material world?

   In your material brain.

8. colewd: We agree that biological processes are reducing variation.

   What then is the origin of species?

   A Nobel awaits….

9. OMagain,

   So I can see “more then 1000”. What was actually asked for was a demonstration of how a particular value was determined, step by step. Ideally we want to perform the demonstration before and after a mutation, and determine if the value as calculated by the procedure went up, down or stayed the same.

   The value is determined by the amount of preserved information over a long evolutionary period. It’s simply a comparison of the bacterial sequence and the human sequence.

   By definition if you change the bacterial sequence and the result is an additional sequence that is different then the human sequence; the score will go down.

   The preserved sequence over long periods of time is evidence that the sequence of the alpha chain could vary just a little and still bind to the beta chain and along with 12 other proteins perform the function of rapid production of ATP.

10. Rumraket,

    More mutations would happen(like they did in the LTEE when one of the proofreading mechanisms became disabled due to mutation), the average fitness of the population would go down compared to the population with functional proofreading, at least for a time because compensatory mutational changes would fix in the population (which also happened and is still ongoing in the LTEE). Eventually proofreading would re-evolve given enough time.

    If you continually repeated this experiment and the populations repeatably died what would you conclude?

11. colewd: Function and fitness are different things. Fitness is how well a group of functions work together to ultimately reproduce. Fitness change does not necessarily correlate with addition or subtraction of information. It is not clear if information was gained or lost in the LTEE.

    There’s no such thing as “fitness”. This was discussed extensively: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/natural-selection-evolution-magic/
    We did generate new information from Lenski’s experiment: we learned there’s no such thing as evolution and that E-coli do not transmutate into any other bacteria.

    GlenDavidson: For instance, packing of atoms could explain crystals, and it turns out that it does (in part).
    ID has neither specific known causes, nor will it even stick with human analogies when life is shown not to agree with human intelligent activity (rather, life is constrained by unthinking evolutionary “mechanisms”).

    “Packing of atoms” are crystals so your “explanation” is circular logic. Let me guess, you’re a Darwinista?
    How do you come up with total nonsense like: “life is constrained by unthinking evolutionary “mechanisms” “?

    Corneel: So does positive selection. Once a beneficial allele fixes, the ancestral allele it displaced is gone.

    Only this whole scenario is just in your head. There’s no such thing as “beneficial mutation”. Not sickle cell, not antibiotic resistance, not Lenski’s mutated E.coli, etc.

    colewd: Do you mean the argument that you can add 500 bits of information into the genome by having 500 single bit adaptive mutations to 500 genes?

    There’s no such thing as “500 bits of information” as information is abstract. But there is “500 bits of data”.

    Corneel: The complete sequence length of the genome is known for a fair number of organisms nowadays, but there is is large variation in the proportion that is functional (including as you say, coding and regulatory sequences).

    How do you know what is “functional” in the DNA? And how would you know what is “not functional”?

    Mung: Why would it be bizarre to think that the origin of new information is mutations?
    Is it because new mutations don’t actually change the entropy of the source such that the average information per symbol never actually changes?
    So how does a change in gene frequency change the average information per symbol?

    Hmm. Information is abstract. Mutations (if “random”) would be noise in Shannon’s system. But of course mutations are not random (does your DNA look like a fair dice?). I’d say mutations are already part of the executable code which doesn’t reside just in the DNA – http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/ . Entropy is just a property of data in Shannon’s transmission system. In Shannon’s, there’s ‘data per symbol’, not “information per symbol” as he’s concern was data transmission, not information.

    Rumraket: Or give a way to measure information content of DNA, so that we can test the claim that evolution can’t create it by doing before-and-after measurements on DNA sequences that have undergone evolutionary change.

    You keep going in circles not understanding that information is not data. As far as “evolution”, the burden is on you to support your failed theory, not on others to demonstrate your theory false… although I have done that over and over.

12. Nonlin.org,

    There’s no such thing as “fitness”. This was discussed extensively: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/natural-selection-evolution-magic/

    If I change the word fitness to survivability does my description work?

13. Rumraket: And creationists like Nonlin in the OP claims there is no way evolution can create information.

    At some point you have to stop lying… and also grow up out of your tantrums. These are the claims in this OP, not what you said:
    Summary:
    1. ‘Information’, ‘data’ and ‘media’ are distinct concepts
    2. Information is entirely separate from matter
    3. Biologic cellular systems are strikingly similar to human built autonomous information systems and unlike anything else observable in the inert universe
    4. DNA mutations are wrongfully interpreted by some as spontaneous information generation
    5. Information cannot just pop into existence in the absence of an intelligent agent
    6. Information can exist for a long time without an intelligent agent
    7. Data is everywhere (including fossil record), but that data becomes information only to intelligent agents

    Of course I claimed elsewhere the concept of “evolution” is retard. And that’s a different discussion.

    Corneel: I seem to have forgotten where I conceded such a thing. Could you provide a link, please?

    While we are on the subject. Are you actually denying that purifying selection exists? Do you see a way that for example developmental lethals will make it into the next generation? If that is the case, then that would be most interesting and you should tell us all about it.

    You failed to counter my “Natural Selection – evolution magic” OP. If no “natural selection”, then no “purifying selection” either. The only selection is done by intelligent beings, remember? So if a “developmental lethals” lacks a certain protein, we can still select FOR those individuals and keep them alive. We do that all the time for various suffering humans. Why is this news to you?!?

    OMagain: Nonlin.org: Where does the idea of a circle reside in the material world?

    In your material brain.

    I’ll take your word for it. Not! Why don’t you open up your brain and tell me exactly what neurons, silicone or what have you does that?

14. Nonlin.org
    Summary:
    1. ‘Information’, ‘data’ and ‘media’ are distinct concepts
    2. Information is entirely separate from matter
    3. Biologic cellular systems are strikingly similar to human built autonomous information systems and unlike anything else observable in the inert universe
    4. DNA mutations are wrongfully interpreted by some as spontaneous information generation
    5. Information cannot just pop into existence in the absence of an intelligent agent
    6. Information can exist for a long time without an intelligent agent
    7. Data is everywhere (including fossil record), but that data becomes information only to intelligent agents

    Who granted you supreme authority to make up your own custom definition of words like “information” different than the rest of the world uses?

    At some point you have to stop lying.

15. Nonlin.org: This is the argument:
    “Media can be anything including any collection of atoms and, without a decoding key, the same media can support an infinity of data. For instance, a DNA chain encodes one set of data when read left to right, another when read in reverse, yet another when read pair-by-pair, and so on. But in living organisms, DNA actually encodes specific information that is uniquely decoded with a key. Furthermore, the information in the DNA is also redundantly encoded to ensure its long term integrity. Aside from DNA and RNA, we can observe many other information systems in nature (with decoding keys such as pheromones, antigens, and hormones), but all are limited to the living.”
    Do you disagree with any of these statements? Which one?

    It’s not an argument, but let that pass.

    I disagree with the first sentence, “Media can be anything including any collection of atoms and, without a decoding key, the same media can support an infinity of data.” More correctly, I have no idea what it could possibly mean.

    Any collection of atoms, so any finite collection of atoms? How can that support an infinity of data?

16. Nonlin.org: So if a “developmental lethals” lacks a certain protein, we can still select FOR those individuals and keep them alive. We do that all the time for various suffering humans. Why is this news to you?!?

    Because I missed the part where we could cure Duchenne Muscle Dystrophy, Tay-Sachs disease, Hutchinsons-Gilford Progeria, Epidermolysis Bullosa, and dozens of other devastating diseases. I am happy to learn that we can cure children with these diseases and allow them to lead happy and fulfilling lives and have children of their own.
    Could you please direct me to your sources that show how we can keep those people alive? Thanks.

17. Nonlin.org: You failed to counter my “Natural Selection – evolution magic” OP.

    You may have an abysmal knowledge of basic biology, but you seem to compensate with a healthy sense of humour. Very good.

18. Erik: It’s not an argument, but let that pass.

    I disagree with the first sentence, “Media can be anything including any collection of atoms and, without a decoding key, the same media can support an infinity of data.” More correctly, I have no idea what it could possibly mean.

    Any collection of atoms, so any finite collection of atoms? How can that support an infinity of data?

    Infinity defined as a “whole bunch”.

19. colewd:
    Nonlin.org,
    If I change the word fitness to survivability does my description work?

    It saddens me that you think you need permission and approval from a kook.

20. colewd: When I see the opposition use logical fallacies like straight assertions, circular reasoning or ad hominem arguments as challenges then I know I am on the right track.

    How does it follow that you are on the right track?

21. dazz: There’s wouldn’t be any significant sequence similarity if it had undergone 2 billion years of neutral evolution.

    First, that’s not what he said. Second, that’s his point.

22. Mung,

    How does it follow that you are on the right track?

    When the opponent who has knowledge of the subject cannot compose a coherent counter argument without logical fallacy it becomes evident that my position has strength.

23. Mung: First, that’s not what he said. Second, that’s his point.

    And his point is absurd.
    2 billion years of functionally constrained evolution clearly suggests that it’s possible to evolve all that “FI” non-neutrally, regardless of mechanism. His assumption that proteins can only evolve neutrally is just plain retarded

24. colewd: When the opponent who has knowledge of the subject cannot compose a coherent counter argument without logical fallacy it becomes evident that my position has strength.

    Then how do you explain the total lack of success your position is currently enjoying? It’s not expanding in it’s adherents, it’s not generating any useful science. It’s not spawning new and interesting research avenues.

    So now you have strength, what will you do with it?

25. colewd: The preserved sequence over long periods of time is evidence that the sequence of the alpha chain could vary just a little and still bind to the beta chain and along with 12 other proteins perform the function of rapid production of ATP.

    So it’s perfectly possible evilution adds information. Check.

26. dazz: 2 billion years of functionally constrained evolution clearly suggests that it’s possible to evolve all that “FI” non-neutrally, regardless of mechanism.

    Self-refuting nonsense.

    His assumption that proteins can only evolve neutrally is just plain retarded

    Where did he ever write such a thing as that?

27. Mung: Self-refuting nonsense.

    If you say so…

    Mung: Where did he ever write such a thing as that?

    You haven’t been paying attention. All his BS relies on the idea that there’s no “gradual stepwise naturally selectable” pathway between protein sequences (with some made up functional information increase), so he believes protein evolution must have proceeded neutrally (because islands of function).

28. Adapa: Who granted you supreme authority to make up your own custom definition of words like “information” different than the rest of the world uses?

    What you quote is not “definition” but a number of conclusions from the OP. What is your definition of “information” and how is it different than the one I quote: “Information is an entity that answers a question and is represented by data encoded on a particular media”?

    Erik: I disagree with the first sentence, “Media can be anything including any collection of atoms and, without a decoding key, the same media can support an infinity of data.” More correctly, I have no idea what it could possibly mean.

    Any collection of atoms, so any finite collection of atoms? How can that support an infinity of data?

    Since no decoding key was given, you are free to interpret the collection of atoms however you want. Say you have only one atom and chose to measure the distance from one of its protons to a fixed reference point… or another reference point, or another… You can basically be as creative as you want.

    Corneel: I am happy to learn that we can cure children with these diseases and allow them to lead happy and fulfilling lives and have children of their own.
    Could you please direct me to your sources that show how we can keep those people alive? Thanks.

    I didn’t say “cure” but yes, we keep them alive and give them a chance to have children of their own. Do your own research – it’s not hard.

29. dazz: You haven’t been paying attention.

    Or you’ve been making things up again.

    It was a simple question that was capable of a simple response. Show me where he wrote what you claim he wrote. If you can’t do that I have no reason to believe what you said was in fact true, and good reason to think it was actually false.

30. Mung: Or you’ve been making things up again.

    It was a simple question that was capable of a simple response. Show me where he wrote what you claim he wrote. If you can’t do that I have no reason to believe what you said was in fact true, and good reason to think it was actually false.

    Check the comments in the Ubiquitin thread @ UD if you want. He argues that there’s no selectable pathway (ladder) that would enable the evolution of “new functional” proteins, so he claims those transitions happen by “engineering” of non coding regions that are later transcribed once finished.

    But to be honest, I don’t care what you believe anyway

31. dazz: He argues that there’s no selectable pathway (ladder) that would enable the evolution of “new functional” proteins, so he claims those transitions happen by “engineering” of non coding regions that are later transcribed once finished.

    You forgot to mention neutral evolution.

    You: His assumption that proteins can only evolve neutrally is just plain retarded

    Where does he say that proteins can only evolve neutrally? Or did you just make it up?

32. Mung: You forgot to mention neutral evolution.

    You: His assumption that proteins can only evolve neutrally is just plain retarded

    Where does he say that proteins can only evolve neutrally? Or did you just make it up?

    I didn’t make it up.

33. dazz: I didn’t make it up.

    And you can’t back it up.

34. Mung: And you can’t back it up.

    I did, you want me to spoon feed you. I don’t give a shit
    Why not ask the man himself?

35. dazz: Why not ask the man himself?

    Mung’s not actually interested in the truth of the matter. All that matters to Mung is that he can catch you out in some slip where you have assigned words to another that they did not specifically say in that order, or some other minor word lawyer point. If he can show you to be in error then what’s to say that you have also not made more significant errors, perhaps your entire understanding of evilution is also in error?

    They have long ago given up trying to make an actual argument, now it’s just divide and conquer. Creating wedges seems to be the metric of their victory now.

    For bonus points Mung, who said this:

    My model is about neutral evolution of a new function, but it assumes that the new function, however unlikely it is, will be recognized, expanded and fixed by ND once it has been achieved by neutral mutations.

36. OMagain: Mung’s not actually interested in the truth of the matter. All that matters to Mung is that he can catch you out in some slip where you have assigned words to another that they did not specifically say in that order, or some other minor word lawyer point. If he can show you to be in error then what’s to say that you have also not made more significant errors, perhaps your entire understanding of evilution is also in error?

    They have long ago given up trying to make an actual argument, now it’s just divide and conquer. Creating wedges seems to be the metric of their victory now.

    For bonus points Mung, who said this:

    Thanks, here’s the link: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/when-im-wrong/#comment-496374

37. Nonlin.org: I didn’t say “cure” but yes, we keep them alive and give them a chance to have children of their own. Do your own research – it’s not hard.

    No, it’s not hard, but you obviously haven’t done any research whatsoever on this topic. You said that in the case of a developmental lethal, if we know which protein is lacking, we can select FOR subjects carrying it. You suggested that we are doing this “all the time for various suffering humans”.

    For all of the diseases that I mentioned, we have a pretty good idea what is wrong (e.g. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is due to mutations at the gene coding for dystrophin), but we are incapable of helping most patients reach life expectancy anywhere close to those of healthy subjects. A simple search of wikipedia would have told you that for Duchenne muscular dystrophy the average life expectancy is 26 years. Your statement that we can keep patients alive and give them a chance to have children is terribly misleading. People suffering from these devastating diseases do not have the same opportunities at having children as we do, and we are certainly not selecting “for” them. Why do you insist on denying obvious facts?

38. Corneel: Why do you insist on denying obvious facts?

    Personally, I do it because the facts are uncomfortable.

39. Mung: Personally, I do it because the facts are uncomfortable.

    Heh, I admire your candor. But what’s so uncomfortable about purifying selection? Seems like a good thing that something is preventing those deleterious variants from spreading trough the population. Nonlin is the first person to make a big fuss about it.

40. Corneel: But what’s so uncomfortable about purifying selection?

    Purification carries too many religious overtones. 🙂

    ETA:

    Seems like a good thing that something is preventing those deleterious variants from spreading trough the population.

    Why, are they evil?

41. Mung: Purification carries too many religious overtones.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that Nonlin is quite comfortable with religious overtones.

42. Corneel: Your statement that we can keep patients alive and give them a chance to have children is terribly misleading.

    What are you talking about? For many such diseases, what used to be a very early death sentence is no longer so. Some have almost normal lives and progress continues. Darwinist eugenics fans are probably not too happy about this. We select “for them” in the sense that we put a lot of effort in helping them stay alive and healthy …as we should.

    “Purifying selection” is total nonsense as demonstrated. I also explained to you that we keep alive and help reproduce a lot of research animals afflicted with all kind of interesting diseases.

    As shown, the only selection you will ever see is ‘intelligent selection’ and even that is impotent in the attempt to transmutate species as Darwin Hollywood dreamed.

43. Nonlin.org: Some have almost normal lives and progress continues. Darwinist eugenics fans are probably not too happy about this.

    This is out of line, Nonlin. If you try this again I will have your comments guanoed. An apology would be in order.

44. Nonlin.org: What are you talking about? For many such diseases, what used to be a very early death sentence is no longer so. Some have almost normal lives and progress continues. Darwinist eugenics fans are probably not too happy about this. We select “for them” in the sense that we put a lot of effort in helping them stay alive and healthy …as we should.

    Wow, the denial is strong in this one.

    First, I note that your defense is weak, as it only applies to very recent history. Diseases that “used to be a very early death sentence” were experiencing strong purifying selection at that time. The fact that medical treatment has recently improved does not alter that fact.

    More importantly, while it is true that for some mild variants of those diseases, we might help patients attain “almost” normal lives (which is a good thing, I agree), “almost” does not help your argument. As long as there is a difference in expected reproductive success, there will be selection against the mutations that cause those diseases. And of course I picked diseases that, despite our enduring efforts in helping patients stay alive and healthy, are devastating to the people who have them. Please look up Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, and tell me that these children have near normal lives with a straight face.

45. Corneel:
    Diseases that “used to be a very early death sentence” were experiencing strong purifying selection at that time.

    More importantly, while it is true that for some mild variants of those diseases, we might help patients attain “almost” normal lives (which is a good thing, I agree), “almost” does not help your argument. As long as there is a difference in expected reproductive success, there will be selection against the mutations that cause those diseases.

    You can only look back and see what happened and then you build a “just so” story around it. But look all around you and you will see organisms that would never survive on their own were it not for some other symbiotic organism (intelligent selector) “artificially” keeping them alive against your nonsensical “purifying selection”.

    What “expected reproductive success”? No such thing. And since you will disagree for sure, what is your “expected reproductive success”? But of course you can’t answer. QED!

46. Nonlin.org: You can only look back and see what happened and then you build a “just so” story around it.

    Uh no. You admitted that this is what happened remember? It was you that called those diseases a “very early death sentence”.

    Nonlin.org: But look all around you and you will see organisms that would never survive on their own were it not for some other symbiotic organism (intelligent selector) “artificially” keeping them alive against your nonsensical “purifying selection”.

    LOL. Why would an “intelligent selector” need to keep other organisms alive to prevent purifying selection from happening if there are no differences in survival in the first place? This is getting pathetic, Nonlin.

    Nonlin.org: What “expected reproductive success”? No such thing. And since you will disagree for sure, what is your “expected reproductive success”? But of course you can’t answer. QED!

    QED again? It needed to be demonstrated that I cannnot answer? But of course I can: The expected reproductive success is the number of viable, fertile, offspring an organism would expect to have over its lifetime. Having a disease that lowers your life expectancy into your teens or twenties will severely impact that. Or were you going to deny that as well?

    ETA: clarity

47. Corneel:
    1. It was you that called those diseases a “very early death sentence”.

    2. LOL. Why would an “intelligent selector” need to keep other organisms alive to prevent purifying selection from happening if there are no differences in survival in the first place?

    3. The expected reproductive success is the number of viable, fertile, offspring an organism would expect to have over its lifetime. Having a disease that lowers your life expectancy into your teens or twenties will severely impact that. Or were you going to deny that as well?

    1. Retrospectively, remember? Hindsight is 20/20.
    2. Yet it happens. We keep them alive for research and food production. Others keep them because they derive some benefits. Why “intelligent selector” and not intelligent selector without quotes? You doubt that? Show your work!
    3. You’re not answering. “What is your “expected reproductive success”?

48. Nonlin.org: 1. Retrospectively, remember? Hindsight is 20/20.

    Oh for Pete’s sake. We know that devastating diseases were devastating in the past but you think that tells us nothing about what they will be like for children born with them nowadays?
    That takes the biscuit. I think I will give it a rest, since you seem to be trapped in inpenetrable denial.

49. Corneel: Oh for Pete’s sake. We know that devastating diseases were devastating in the past but you think that tells us nothing about what they will be like for children born with them nowadays?

    Are you serious? How many of those devastating diseases are no longer as devastating as before? I’ll start the list and you finish it: diabetes, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia… Do you know the actual outcome for someone born with cystic fibrosis today? No, you don’t!

50. Nonlin.org: Do you know the actual outcome for someone born with cystic fibrosis today? No, you don’t!

    You are rather amusingly mistaken.

    Anyway, in Europe in 2015, the most frequent range of age of death for patients with cystic fibrosis was from 21 to 30 years. For children born with CF today, that will improve as new therapeutic strategies are becoming available. Unfortunately, we are not quite there yet.
    I wish you were right, Nonlin, and that people with devastating diseases like CF could be treated to live perfectly normal lives, but you are not.