Information and Genetics

Peter & SLPx et alI think we all agree that genomic sequences are 'special' - they're not random - who cares how they came to be - they are special now - they code for folded and function proteins.You guys believe that you can get a minimal genome randomly and then that this genome will, over time, end up with new genes that will form organs, limbs and cellualr systems etc. This is where the debate should be focused. Surely we all agree that what we now have in genomes is special and finely tuned.As we have discussed before, in itself the genomic sequence and the protein sequences look pretty random. But train a neural netweork on it and it will find a systematic lack of randomness. a neural netweork would discover consecutive codons coding for alpha-helical secondary structure and simlar streches for beta-strands. There is definte informaiton content even if analysed by something that doesn't know what to look for. This is exactly the same with a computer. Examining a hard disk in binary it would look loke junk. In ascii one would find patterns.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-12-2002]

PeterI partially agree/disagree.A study of genomes would discover systemtic non-randomness even without knowing what to look for. This is evidence of specialness which indludes design but I agree it is not proof of design.

Hi QuetzalI basically agree. The fine-tuning is at various levels of course and I agree that it is happening today via natural selection. I simply don't beleive the ribosome was finally tuned from nothing!