Is there objective Truth?

[Mister Agenda]

You guys are just tooting your own horn. Gene duplication isn't new information being added, it's duplication.

Chimp has addressed this, but I feel you may benefit from having it spelled out.

1. A gene duplicates
2. The duplicated gene undergoes mutations
3. The mutations are selected for or against (or are neutral and not selected either way) by the organism's environment.

Add 1, 2, and 3 together and you have new genetic information. It's on a gene that wasn't present before, so it's not just a modification of an existing gene.

You can make a case that the gene had more information before it was altered by mutation and selection; but it's similar to arguing that the Pieta had more information when it was a cube of marble. Yes, it would take more code to describe the location of every molecule of the slab the Pieta was carved from; but it was by carving away useless or insignificant 'code' that the masterpiece was achieved. In gene duplication, all the information is redundant, you could get rid of 90% of it and if what was left was functional, no reasonable person would consider that a loss of information.

[Pat Mustard]

You guys are just tooting your own horn. Gene duplication isn't new information being added, it's duplication.

Chimp has addressed this, but I feel you may benefit from having it spelled out.

1. A gene duplicates
2. The duplicated gene undergoes mutations
3. The mutations are selected for or against (or are neutral and not selected either way) by the organism's environment.

Add 1, 2, and 3 together and you have new genetic information. It's on a gene that wasn't present before, so it's not just a modification of an existing gene.

You can make a case that the gene had more information before it was altered by mutation and selection; but it's similar to arguing that the Pieta had more information when it was a cube of marble. Yes, it would take more code to describe the location of every molecule of the slab the Pieta was carved from; but it was by carving away useless or insignificant 'code' that the masterpiece was achieved. In gene duplication, all the information is redundant, you could get rid of 90% of it and if what was left was functional, no reasonable person would consider that a loss of information.

We don't even need mutation to add genetic information to an organism. Most species do it through recombination, which happens by a process known as
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1rscPaS7TQ

[bennyboy]

Because of thread devolution.

haha

[I_am_not_mafia]

Gene duplication isn't new information being added, it's duplication.

You're right, but the neutral gene theory explains this as opening up new areas of search space. Neutral duplications that do not reduce the fitness of an organism allow for mutations in future generations to be applied to the duplicated part. Therefore duplication allows for new information to be added in the future. I use this myself in my evolutionary algorithms to let more complex solutions develop over time.

"Mutations leading to new information (e.g., way of functioning, physical trait). Sometimes, it can have negative effects, sometimes positive, and sometimes a combination of both, depending on the environment type in which the mutation (or set of mutations) develop(s)."

Convergence loses information over time. This will happen even if you do not have a selection pressure. Mutation increases information over time.

With genetic algorithms you need to carefully set your mutation rate. Set too high and you will find a solution more quickly, but at the cost of finding a near optimal solution. Set it too low and you will spend longer trying to find a good solution.

This is why I personally developed an evolutionary algorithm that does away with convergence and only uses the mutation operator and decreases the mutation rate over time.

This is all theory put into practice when writing genetic algorithms. This is theory developed from finding out what actually works in practice. If it was wrong, our algorithms wouldn't work. I can dig out the sources if you want.

[maestroanth]

On a quantum scale it looks like a subjective universe, however, the larger the scale, the more objective the universe becomes.

[theologian]

Truth is both objective and subjective. For, truth is the state of mind being in accordance with reality. Now, reality is objective and mind is subjective. Therefore, truth is just truth and classifying truth into either objective or into subjective doesn't know that truth is the state of mind being in accordance with reality.

[Pat Mustard]

Truth is both objective and subjective. For, truth is the state of mind being in accordance with reality. Now, reality is objective and mind is subjective. Therefore, truth is just truth and classifying truth into either objective or into subjective doesn't know that truth is the state of mind being in accordance with reality.

Basic logic, you cannot have something hold the properties of x and not x at the same time. What you are talking about here is reality (objective) and the mind's perception of reality (subjective). The mind plays tricks on us all the time, and we tell untruths as a result without realising them.

[bennyboy]

On a quantum scale it looks like a subjective universe, however, the larger the scale, the more objective the universe becomes.

I find this relationship extremely interesting.  Rather than chaos and order ordered along a time axis, it's almost like an outward-in history of entropy ordered along a scale axis.

[Sal]

[bennyboy]

Basic logic, you cannot have something hold the properties of x and not x at the same time.

Yeah, you can. That's what quantum superposition is.