Objective Vs Subjective Mutations
by Rod Jackson
This analogy I created to express the difference between an objectively good mutation and a subjectively good mutation.
Consider a world that consists of robots. Now these robots have 5 MB (5 million bytes) of memory. They need it all to run at full efficiency. These robots go around collecting the parts they need to make clone robots of themselves. So they go and gather bits and pieces, program the motherboards etc, all such that, the new robots will be just like they are (in functioning capacity). And so the newly robots created robots will then go about finding parts to build another clone robot etc.
Time passes...
Now it comes to pass that in the course of time, one of the cloned robots gets an error in it. This error results such that, it only has 640 KB (640 thousand bytes) of memory. This is much less than 5 MB of memory that it's "parent" robots had. Because of this loss of memory space the robot with the 640 KB of memory could only function at less than 20% speed as the other robots. So it was less efficient than the other robots.
Since the 640 KB robot makes clones of itself (not it's "parent" robot), all the robots it makes will only have 640 KB of memory too.
Time passes...
After there are many 5 MB and 640 KB robots on this world, a virus "arose" (its origins are unknown). However it would pass from one robot to another, and do it's deadly work. It would destroy any robot that could run the virus. But this virus required 2 MB (2 million bytes) of memory to run. so gradually as all the robots got infected all the robots that could run the virus died out. This means that all the robots with 5 MB of memory were destroyed, and the ones with 640 KB continued as normal.
[NOTE - 5 MB > 2 MB > 640 KB ]
Now you may be wondering what this analogy is getting at. Let me explain. The robot represents a creature. As time passes the creature gets mutations in its offspring. These mutations are objectively bad as it always results in a loss of genetic information. Something that is detrimental to the creature attacks it (like a virus :) Anyways, the mutated creature may survive because it could not 'assimilate' the virus. So the mutation wile being objectively bad (it resulted in a loss of genetic information) is subjectively good (as the creature survived).
What is the point of this distinction?
Well it is important to note for one creature to give rise to another new kind of creature it requires objectively good mutations (the increase in quality of genetic information). It is not sufficient to show that an "adaptation" allowed a creature to survive, ie. has a subjectively good mutation. Because a subjectively good mutation does not mean that the creature has an objectively good mutation.