Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-21-2017 9:14 AM
441 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 799,028 Year: 3,634/21,208 Month: 2,029/1,605 Week: 229/376 Day: 19/113 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1448
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 46 of 61 (798206)
02-01-2017 6:16 AM


Bump for CRR
Seeing that you appeared since your last post on this subject; just wanted to know whether you have figured out how to quantify genetic information yet.
Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 6:48 AM Pressie has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 47
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 47 of 61 (798209)
02-01-2017 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2017 12:31 PM


There are two ways in which a coin can land on its side, heads or tails. But, there are a almost an infinite number of ways that the coin could land one of the many places along its edge. Therefore, it is practically impossible for a coin flip to land on heads or tails.

Errr, no. It is quite obvious that the probability of landing on an edge is infinitesimal in the total result space.

Rather the analogy would be that finding a functional proteins would correspond to a flipped coin landing on its edge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2017 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-06-2017 3:08 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 47
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 48 of 61 (798210)
02-01-2017 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Pressie
02-01-2017 6:16 AM


Re: Bump for CRR
No. have you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2017 6:16 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2017 6:52 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1448
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 49 of 61 (798211)
02-01-2017 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by CRR
02-01-2017 6:48 AM


Re: Bump for CRR
Ah, great. I have no way of quantifying "genetic information". You claimed that you can. So do it.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 6:48 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 47
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 50 of 61 (798215)
02-01-2017 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Pressie
01-27-2017 5:44 AM


So, according to you the bigger the number of base pairs together with the bigger the number of genes the 'more the genetic information' an organism has? Is that how you quantify "genetic information"?

That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating.

Of course I am aware of the C-value paradox. Ohno and others argued that it was due to an accumulation of junk DNA. However the whole idea of junk DNA has taken a hammering in recent years, but perhaps it does provide part of the answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Pressie, posted 01-27-2017 5:44 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2017 7:18 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2017 8:00 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2017 4:37 PM CRR has responded
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 02-02-2017 4:55 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 02-02-2017 5:02 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1448
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 51 of 61 (798217)
02-01-2017 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by CRR
02-01-2017 7:07 AM


So, again you can't tell us how to measure "genetic information".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 7:07 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1448
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 52 of 61 (798220)
02-01-2017 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by CRR
02-01-2017 7:07 AM


This one is funny.

CRR writes:

That would be a naive way of thinking about it...

That's the way you, yourself proposed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 7:07 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 53 of 61 (798303)
02-01-2017 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by CRR
02-01-2017 7:07 AM


That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating.

Curiously, I think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes. I think that the concept of "information" is meaningless or superfluous, because wherever IDologists try to use it the result is meaningless or it increases via evolutionary changes, and that evolution proceeds without need to refer to it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 7:07 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 11:13 PM RAZD has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 47
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 54 of 61 (798356)
02-01-2017 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
02-01-2017 4:37 PM


I too think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes, because the human DNA contains the information to form specific tissues, organs, and the layout of the human body, all missing from the E. coli DNA.

However I don't think that genetic information is directly proportional to size of the genome, just as I don't think the information contained in a book is directly proportional to the weight or word count.

It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2017 4:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2017 11:27 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 02-02-2017 4:57 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 55 of 61 (798426)
02-02-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by CRR
02-01-2017 11:13 PM


I too think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes, because the human DNA contains the information to form specific tissues, organs, and the layout of the human body, all missing from the E. coli DNA.

We can measure and test DNA, we can parse to see what sections are used for which purposes. It is quantifiable, and the activity of discrete sections can be isolated and monitored, modified and observed to see the changes to the individual.

However I don't think that genetic information is directly proportional to size of the genome, just as I don't think the information contained in a book is directly proportional to the weight or word count.

Indeed, you could argue that shorter DNA is more efficient at producing the development\phenotype of the individual. There is certainly a synergy of parts interacting in more complex organisms.

Until "information" can be quantified it can not be tested, it cannot be isolated, it cannot be measured, and that is the simple crux of why it is not a usable term: you are left with a purely subjective assessment, just like the purely subjective assessment of beauty.

It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins.

Knowledge build on knowledge known, as concepts are invalidated and replaced with new ones. Knowing what is not correct is a better approximation of reality than not knowing it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 11:13 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 56 of 61 (798455)
02-02-2017 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by CRR
02-01-2017 7:07 AM


CRR writes:

That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating.

Does the human genome contain more information than the chimp, mouse, or chicken genome? The human genome is 3 billion bases, and the onion genome is 100 billion bases. Does the onion genome contain more genetic information?

However the whole idea of junk DNA has taken a hammering in recent years, but perhaps it does provide part of the answer.

The idea of junk DNA is as strong as ever, if not stronger. More an more data have demonstrated that only ~10% of the human genome is being conserved which is extremely strong evidence that up to 90% of the human genome has no sequence specific function.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 7:07 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 57 of 61 (798456)
02-02-2017 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by CRR
02-01-2017 11:13 PM


It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins.

They could produce different proteins, but tons of evidence is demonstrating that they usually don't. Only in a minority of cases does alternative splicing result in an altered protein with any regularity.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 11:13 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 58 of 61 (798457)
02-02-2017 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by CRR
02-01-2017 7:07 AM


CRR writes:

That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating.

Using your philosophy of only focusing on features that are lost, a primitive bacteria evolving into a human would be a loss in information because humans would have lost the ability to do many things the bacteria were able to do, such as thrive in anaerobic environments and reproduce rapidly.

If evolution occurred exactly how scientists propose it, you would call each and every step a loss in information. A fish evolving into a tetrapod would be a loss in information because the fish loses its fins and loses the ability to swim. A reptile evolving into a placental mammal would be a loss in information because the animal no longer has scales nor the ability to lay eggs.

In fact, if we use your definition for a loss in information, the entire process would REQUIRE a loss of information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. Such is the problem you run into when you try to define a gain in information such that evolution can't produce it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 7:07 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 02-03-2017 5:06 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1448
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 59 of 61 (798527)
02-03-2017 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taq
02-02-2017 5:02 PM


After all of this, CRR was still unable to provide any quantitavive analyses on how to determine whether any organism has "more" or "less" genetic information than another organism. Couldn't tell us how an organism could "gain" or " loose" genetic information. All CRR did was to claim that thumb-sucks count as "science".

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 02-02-2017 5:02 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1448
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 60 of 61 (798871)
02-06-2017 6:20 AM


Bump this up again.
I want to bump this up again. CRR has no way of quantifiying the amount of genetic information in any organism.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017