Yes, but I want it to count. I don’t want to use a measure of genetic information you don’t think counts. So if you tell me how to measure it, I can then go and determine whether there are examples of evolution of increased information according to that definition.
See if you can find somewhere where John Sanford defines genetic information in a way it can be measured and quantified.
Good luck.
Not at all, they’re not losing the defense receptors. They are “losing function” in negative regulators (genes that inhibit the function of other genes).
That means there’s a gene A that is shutting off another gene B by blocking activation of the other gene B, and this gene A is inactivated by a “loss of function” mutation in A.
So the gene A (the one that shuts off B) loses the ability to shut off gene B, but this results in activation of B, so now the function of B is turned on, leading to increased pathogen resistance.
The two next words after what you have bolded are crucial to understanding what is happening at the molecular level, and how this leads to a beneficial effect at the phenotypic level. So those really would be beneficial mutations. No, they don’t have to be information-increasing or complexity-increasing mutations at the same time, to really be beneficial mutations.
Damn, there goes another Irony Detector.
What is the complexity of our genome compared to other great apes or mice?
But you refuse to examine any real evidence. Your claim that Sanford is exposing anything is pure hearsay.
You should feel silly, and you’re getting a lot of things wrong, not a few things.
The lack of understanding is yours. We understand his idea and we understand that it is not supported by the evidence (that you ignore).
But it doesn’t. You highlighted some words, ignored others, and refuse to see the context in which the cited study sits.
[quote=“thoughtful, post:159, topic:12338”]
No, he gave other examples of how it produced other successes. See below.
All excellent questions that Valerie should carefully consider and answer, even if she doesn’t do so here.
IOW, not only is Valerie failing to examine the evidence for herself, she is missing the point even when she limits herself to textual analysis.
His main idea, as I understand it, is that the relative proportion of beneficial, neutral and deleterious mutations arising and undergoing fixation in the gene pool of any population is such that it is impossible for a species to survive beyond a given period of time without going extinct due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations.
Is that at least close to the mark?