Godless Dave

Helpful mutations have been observed (I'm using opposable thumbs right now!) but the whole question about adding or removing information just doesn't make much sense and is a misapplication of information theory. You could accurately look at mutations as adding information to the genome if it makes you feel better but this is biology, not math or computer science.

Paul

no I don't think it is.

But while I'm on the subject what kind of odds would you say that
makes the evolution of one spieces to another impossable.

Paul

But is'nt evolution the devolpment of simple organisms to more complex organisms correct me if I wrong but does that not mean that mutations have to add information?

Godless Dave

No.

If you want to look at a genome as containing information, than yes. And mutations do add information.

Paul

No...... Right. Please correct me then

So helpful mutations add information yes well point mutations anyway. What about resistant bacteria are they resistant because they lose the gene which produces something which reacts to the antibiotic.

Godless Dave

Biological evolution can be defined as change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.

In the early stages of the evolution of life that often meant that simpler organisms evolved into more complex ones. But there's nothing to stop an organism from evolving into something less complex if that conferred a survival advantage. Mostly organisms evolve into something different, that isn't necessarily more or less complex than their recent ancestors.

One of the experts can answer your bacteria question better than I can. I would imagine that drug-resistant bacteria contain a mutated gene that confers resistance to certain chemicals that are toxic to it, so they would be "gaining information" - there's something in their genome that wasn't in their ancestors.

Wyz_sub10

Paul, in order for probability to mean something you have to certain information.

EX: What is the likelihood that 'A' results/causes 'B'.

First, to calculate probablity, we need to know what the possible outcomes of 'A' are.

In your question, what are the other possible outcomes of 'micro' evolution or mutations? If we do not know, then we cannot determine the probability for any of the outcomes.

But there's a second part, equally as cumbersome to probability. If you take a complex end result and assume it was a *desired* or *necessary* result, then the apparent probability increases. This is what you are doing with life - assuming it was a goal or intended result.

Have you ever heard of the puzzle that asks how many people have to be in a room before the chances two people sharing the same brithday are more than 90% (or whatever)? The key to the puzzle is understanding the difference between 2 people sharing a *particular* birthday (i.e. Jan 20) and two people sharing *any* birthday.

That's to be considered here - the difference between life *as we know it* developing and *any* life developing.

It's also important to understand that there is no line between micro and macro. It isn't as though micro happens in one way, and then it hits a wall that has macro on the other side.

Nothing makes it impossible.

True story - I dreamed last night of two dogs fighting (don't ask me why). Of all the things that I could have dreamed about, of all the thoughts in my mind as I went to sleep, of all the things I heard on the news or recalled from conversations, I ended up dreaming of two stupid dogs fighting.

What are the odds of that, given all the possibilities? Pretty damn small, I would guess - microscopic when one considers the possibilities. Does that make the dream impossible?

One species evolving into another is not a mysterious process.

- normal fish --> fish that can take in small amounts of air --> fish that can take in air and use it's fins to move on shore, and so on and so on.

These examples exist today - we have plain ol' fish, we have fish like mudskippers. The probability of fish --> mudskipper might be very low, but that only matters if we assume the mudskipper was a goal. It wasn't. It was simply the result of many processes.

Some people today are born with webbing between their fingers. Because there is no advantage to this, it is unlikely we will see a large population of flipper people. Not every 'macro' trait sticks around (in fact most don't). Some do, some don't. There is no need to calculate the possible of flipper people developing.

spazcow

Hi all! I aplologize for not reading through all BILLION replies here so i'm just going to say that i voted for evilution. The poll itself shows an o can evolve into an i. (if someone else said that already, sorry but it is funny (maybe not funny Ha Ha though))

oh well, this is my virgin post and it's always awkward the first time you do it

Paul

but for a "simple" organism eg a Bacteria to evolve to the next spiece(s) information and complexity would have to be added. The question I'm asking it can mutations add information since most are damaging or neutral.

Godless Dave

Yes. Even the damaging or neutral ones add or change information.