|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Information and Genetics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: As I have stated several times recently, evolutionists who recognize and try to deal with the information problem attempt to get the information required for NDT to produce new algorithms for new functions via gene duplication, then subsequent modifications to that duplicated gene.
quote: You are putting words in my mouth. I never said an altered program never can become a new program. I said that it is quite unreasonable to view your particular one mutation example (nylon, et al) as a new algorithm. If your boss asked you to report on the enzyme that allows nylon-digesting, which would be more accurate: it is the result of an alteration to the gene that originally encoded for carbohydrate digestion, or it is the result of a new coding sequence in the gene that originally encoded for carbohydrate digestion. By your logic a single bug in a subroutine should deem that subroutine as something new. No, it’s BROKEN. You are trying to call it new because you want new information. You are grasping at straws.
quote: This is easily refuted. What if the non-sonar parent sequence does not have enough genome space available for the new sonar sequence? Can you take the opcode space available for a simple program like a basic calculator, alter it and produce PowerPoint? Of course not. Regardless, you continue to miss the primary point. I’ll give it one more try, and this time not even consider the AiG citation that argues it was a transfer of information. In the example you provided, essentially a bit in the program was toggled. In order for it to qualify as an increase in information, we need to know several things. 1) To keep things simple, let’s assume a nucleotide change is binary instead of quaternary. So there are two states, 0 and 1. The default, or normal setting is 0, which codes for carbohydrate digestion. Setting 1 codes for nylon. In order for there to be new, or increased information, the original state 0 would have to be the unfavorable state. But it is clear that 0 is the favorable state (in general), and the study confirms that this method is a whopping 98% more efficient. So based on this knowledge, we actually lose information when we go from 0 to 1.2) Was the mutation random? If so, then from 1) above we can again reasonably conclude that a loss of information occurred. What if the mutation was non-random, that is, environmentally induced? This means there was no net gain or loss of information because the information was already present. I haven’t studied the study you provided in-depth, but from the website you posted my bet is this is a non-random mutation. The author states that it’s been observed more than once. What an un-whitting admission he is making here! Given the odds that this specific mutation would be observable more than once certainly raises eyebrows that this may not be a random event. Another reasonable possibility is that certain portions (hot-spots) of the genome have been pre-programmed for hypermutation during environmental stress to toggle bits in an effort to find a possible combination that improves survival in the degraded environment. quote: I do not recall you giving me an example that you would consider info loss. Can you or can’t you? I think this is the third time now I’ve asked. The reason I continue to badger you and Percy for this because I think it gets the core of why you version of information is incorrect. The way you have presented your argument throughout this discussion is that any change is new, or increased information. To conclude, your nylon—wearing bacteria example is simply not a valid case of info gain (or new info). If the mutaiton in question is random, then it’s a classic case of information loss. Regardless of how you view Lee Spetner, he is qualified to speak on information science (he taught it for years at John Hopkins). He has a similar example in his book and explains why it is clearly a loss of info. Sorry to be blunt, but I’ve only seen layman reject Spetner’s claim. I have not seen any evolutionists who are involved in info science question this key concept of information. That is why the informed evolutionists try to get info via gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation/selection of the new gene.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: It depends. Was it the intent of the sender? If not, the receiver lost information even in the Shannon sense because of loss of certainty. Is it a typo in a dictionary? Again, a clear loss of information. Is it an intentional addition of a new word to the language by the sender? This would be new information.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: See my response to Page on tree rings.
quote: As you somewhat alluded to earlier, when Shannon wrote his paper he was not inventing information theory. His purpose was to establish mathematically communication throughput and efficiency. From his paper developed the modern concept of information as understood by today’s info theorists. It was Shannon’s equivocation that is today viewed as Shannon information.
quote: Not if the person has expertise in the field.
quote: BINGO! Chance of success = UNITY. NO INFORMATION GAINED! Find me one single info theorist in the world who agrees with you that an experiment guaranteed to reach a pre-determined target has produced new information without a sender. We are at a dead end, Percy. You are flat wrong.
quote: This is a textbook tautology, rendering the statement useless.
quote: Incorrect. Even when evolutionists assume strong selection, they admit that it has at best a 1 in 50 chance of fixation.
quote: No it isn’t, because information cannot arise naturalistically. There are no known examples in the universe to counter this law of nature.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: This thread is getting extremely tiresome. It should be evident on reflection that "information" is in itself a metaphor for aspects of what canbe perceived, that this metaphor is in turn applied metaphorically to biological processes as a convenience, and that examining the internals of the metaphor may or may not be informative about the biological processes in question, but that conclusions from the metaphor can only be applied to the processes only in so far as the metaphor is appropriate. Discussing the word "oak" can be informative about oaks, but only to a limited extent. Discussing the information content, if any, of biological processes can be informative about those processes, but only to a limited extent. Naturally occuring codes, in the form you describe, occur throughout nature in great abundance. In my garden at the moment there are strawberries signalling their ripeness with a highly effective colour-code. The colour signal conveys information about the state of the sender as surely as my cable modem signals this message. Howver, it is no surprise to me that Fred should declare that there is no naturally occuring information. Not only does he believe the misguided metaphor suits his purpose, but the nature of the metaphor itself is highly biased. "Information" is a term used primarily to indicate communication between intelligent agents. When applied to other systems metaphorically (as in information theory, where it acquires a specialised technical definition, different from the common usage) it acquires its ramifications. Fred's use is a classic case of the pseudorefuting description - abundant natural information cannot be true information, because true information cannot be natural. So Fred, is the strawberries' colour information? I notice you brushed off the tree ring problem with "they are abviously not a code" which was a pathetic answer, which begged more questions than I think you have either time or arguments enough to answer in full.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Just a couple of observations.
Fred asks how the nylon-digesting enzyme would be reported. Let's assume that we are presented with the nylon bacterium and its carbohydrate eating progenitor devoid of historical knowledge of which food source was available first or which bacterium arose from the other. We could recognise that the two bacteria were very closely related and a gene differed by only one base (addition or deletion?) But which version would be the true version and which one would be the "broken" version? Fred is only making this judgement because we are aware of the historical context. But lose the historical context and add a thousand years of mutation and evolution, how could we distinguish between the "true" code and the "broken" code. Fred finds support in the comment that "its been observed "more than once"". But were the other occurences the identical mutation or can a variety of mutations produce an adequate protein configuration for metabolising nylon? Obviously if any of the mutations resulted in a severe disadvantage (inability to metabolise carbohydrates) without an offsetting advantage (ability to metabolise yet-to-be-invented nylon) they would be removed by selective pressure. If as Fred suggests, "certain portions (hot-spots) of the genome have been pre-programmed for hypermutation during environmental stress to toggle bits in an effort to find a possible combination that improves survival in the degraded environment", why does this not occur with all individuals in the bacterial population? Why does the switch only flick (or exist) for a select few? And if such versatility is the produce of intelligent design, why is the alternative state so inefficient? Why not have an efficient carbohydrate metabolising gene and a seperate, efficient nylon metabolising gene to cope with the possibility of a degraded environment? Fred says "But it is clear that 0 is the favorable state (in general), and the study confirms that this method is a whopping 98% more efficient. So based on this knowledge, we actually lose information when we go from 0 to 1." Hmmmm. How much "information" did we start with for a nylon metabolising process? How much "information" did we end up with for such a process? Seems like a net increase in "information" on nylon metabolism.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
quote: Good point, but one which Fred will not attempt to answer. He seems to prefer to speak qualitatively on this issue instead of quantitatively. Gives him more weasel room I suppose. If he put a number on the amount of information contained in a given system, it would stand for about an hour before his assertion was refuted with an increase in information. Despite this, no matter how Fred wants to define the change from a non-nylon metabolizing species to a nylon metabolizing species, there are now 2 populations where originally there was just one. Once again, Fred's Theory of Information did not prevent evolution from happening. Who knows, maybe God created the first replicating cell with a trillion base pairs. We have lost lots of information since then according to Fred's definition, but evolution got along just fine anyway. FK
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: If you will not spend hours typing against numerous arguments, then I have to wonder why you make claims that attract numerous arguments... Anyway, if you are to be 'attacked', it would probably be for relying a bit too much on creationist literature as per your bibliography. One question - did you actually read the Lewontin article that you quote from on your home page? That same quote appears on AiG, and about a hundred other creationist sites, including Fred Williams'. Problem is, if you read the article, you would know that he was not referring to evolution ....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
And by the way, sorry, but Questzal wasn't 'losing'...
Quoting Meyer and Bergman, however, that is a sign of something else. Did you know that Bergman wrote in a book that the coccyx is bifid?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Thanks Mr P. I needed that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: That doesn’t answer the question. What do YOU think is a new algorithm re. Genetic material.
quote: Then I suggest you quantify when an altered algorithm becomes a new algorithm, with citations from info science please. I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I was making a logical extension.
quote: Oh, the genome space increase was a part of the alteration. So God still can alter non-sonar sequence & produce sonar sequence without new information.
quote: A bit wasn’t toggled. IT WAS ADDED!!!!!!
quote: Hot spots are not pre-programmed. Mutations occur with higher frequency at hot spots regardless of environment. Gene sequence mutation hot spots are nothing new, however, just because there are hot spots doesn’t preclude the rest of the sequence undergoing mutation (as is observed), rendering your argument moot. Furthermore, if you can’t predict where the next mutation is going to occur, then it’s random (in the sense biologists mean it). If you apply a strict statistical definition to random, then all loci must have an equal chance of mutation. This definition doesn’t really restrict evolution, because all sites are subject to potential mutation, it is random in the sense that the next substitution site cannot be predicted. You could say that evolution is non-random mutation culled by natural selection/ drift etc, as long as you’re not going to conflate non-random with pre-programmed. It makes no odds, the biology books would need to be altered, but nothing has physically changed.
quote: You asked for an example of information loss at the genetic level
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=55&m=5#5 2/ A chromosome loss, that carried expressed genes. Whole genes being lost, it doesn’t get more genetic than this.
quote: It’s interesting that you can see info loss, but not the gain. 1/ Let’s get back to the crux of the argument, does evolution require naturally arising new information in the genome? 2/ Does evolution require naturally arising information that never previously existed in the genome? What’s the bloody difference, except for a definitive one? You have tried to say evolution can’t occur because, 1/ can’t occur. If this were actually a physical restraint, you would have a point, but since scenario 2/ CAN be true, evolution is safe from information theory. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lewissian Member (Idle past 4726 days) Posts: 18 From: USA Joined: |
Deleted.
Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Indeed.... Argument via personal definiton is a creationist staple...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: You do understand that this is a public board, do you not? If you want only to discuss specific issues with specific individuals, then I suggest that the proper place for that is via email. Of course, this is a discussion board, not a debate board. quote: I don't read too many popular science books myself. I prefer to get the information from the primary literature. Of course, it is nice to have someone condense it all once in a while. I don't know who 'Rennie' is, so I cannot comment on all that. I did just read Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, and I have read Icons of Evolution (in which I found a major out of context quote used as the basis for a ridiculous extrapolation), Refuting Evolution, and The Biotic Message. I found them to be entertaining. Not very informative, scientifically, but entertaining nonetheless. quote: I have never heard of evolutionary humanism, Chase. Is that the newest thing that I must be a proponant of even if I don't know it? Just like naturalistic materialism? Of course, naturalism in science - methodological naturalism, that is - also forms the basis of physics, geology, medicine, etc. Are all fields of science therefore caput? Or just evolution? quote: I did not expect any such thing. I merely pointed out that he is not the expert that he is often heralded as being. Of course, I in fact DID already supply an argument against the specific quote by Bergman: "The use of hemoglobin to prop up his claim is disingenuous, in my opinion.Indeed, there are examples of "necessary" proteins - cytochrome C for example - that are found in nearly all forms of multicellular life and yet can function while being as much as 50% different in amino acid sequence in different lineages. Does Jerry mention this fact? Or just the one fact that he can use to support his implications?" quote: This is a common, but quite fallacious form of argument that is seen from creationists. I call it the argument via cart before the horse. Not a very accurate or encompassing title, but allow me to explain.First, it is all well and good that the odds of some extant protein forming via 'random chance' is very low. So is being dealt a specific hand of cards froma standard deck. Providing, of course, thjat you specify the order, suit, and value of each card prior to them being dealt. On the other hand, the odds of being dealt a hand of cards is 1. Now, if you take the hand of cards you were dealt and consider the odds of getting that particular hand - that is, specifying the hand after the fact - we once again get that extremely low probability. So, the problem with such arguments (thus far) is that the specificity that creationists love is an after the fact specificity, that is, cart before the horse. You ask how such specificity can arise via chance and evolutionary processes. Back to the cards. Say the dealer (the environment) has in mind a winning hand (the best suited phenotype). He deals the cards, you (an organism) get a random hand (DNA sequence). Say there are a thousand of you playing - a big deck of cards. Chances are slim that even with 1000 players, the 'winning' hand was dealt. You all show your cards. The dealer looks at the hands, and takes away the cards from each player that are not in his 'winning hand.' Some players lose all their cards, and they are out of the game - they become extinct. The dealer then hands out more cards to each player. Again, the dealer goes round and takes away the cards - selects - that are not in the 'winning hand.' Some of the players decide to work as a team. Together, these groups have hands that are getting close to the 'winning hand.' After a few more rounds of taking cards away and dealing more, several players have hands that are really close to the dealer's 'winning hand.' He decides that is good enough. Game over. Random processes generate variability. Selection and other mechanisms determine which variation succeeds. The successful variations contian the 'information' that some now refer to as specified and wonder how it could have arisen at all... But I will refer you to the same paper I referred Fred to: Natural Selection as the process of accumulation of genetic information in adaptive evolution. 1961. Kimura, M. (working on scanning it for Percy).
quote: Forgive me for not rising to your challenge. I shall be sure to pass on your challenge at the next evilutionist conspiracy meeting I attend. quote: Strange - I was thinking the same thing...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Fred writes: Yes, I know, tree rings aren't information because they aren't a code. This argument is as wrong for tree rings as it is for starlight. Starlight is information. It is uncoded information, or at least is not represented in a form we would normally think of as a code, but it *is* information. Chinese writing, alphabets and binary bytes are merely codes that humans have found convenient for representing information. A code is a way of recording, representing and transmitting information, but is not itself information (unless you're interested in the code itself). Information can be coded, and uncoded information is still information. What's more, it takes only a modest change in perspective to see that light *is* a code. The spectrum of light is represented as waves of different wavelengths, intensities and polarizations. It's a code that can be partially decoded by our eyes, but which really begins to give up its secrets when subjected to spectrum analyzers and so forth.
You must be thinking of someone else.
Shannon's equivocation has to do with the randomness and uncertainty that I addressed in earlier messages. But the point I was making this time is that the semantic aspects of information are, as Shannon points out, "irrelevant to the engineering problem." Semantic interpretations, which derive from intelligence, are irrelevant to information theory. Percy writes: Fred replies: Huh? It would be a fallacy even if you were making claims about relativity while citing Einstein. Maybe you haven't heard of the fallacies of debate, but citing authority is one of them. It is used as a means of avoiding having to support a position, eg, "Famous scientist X agrees with me, and that's that." If you'd like to provide some discussion supporting the positions of the evolutionists you mentioned I'd be glad to look it over.
Once again you're introducing requirements unrelated to information theory, and if I were to do as you suggest and cite info theorists who agree with me it would once again be the fallacy of appeal to authority. A debate is won by supporting your position with evidence and argument, not by saying, "Genius X says so, nyah, nyah." About the outcome being predetermined, just run the experiment in 1900 before Einstein came up with E=mc2. Or, since E=mc2 was chosen just to have something concrete to focus on, imagine we're only considering unknown equations and apply the afore described selection criteria.
You may be at a dead end, but I'm not. It's fairly clear where your misunderstandings of information theory lie, and each time you restate them the path to correcting you is pretty clear. Percy writes: Fred replies: Then so is, "The fastest car wins the race." I guess calling it a tautology is what you do when you're otherwise at a loss, because as an objection this makes no sense. That was just one sentence in a description outlining the process for which I created the C++ model. It's the part that describes selection, where the closer the sequence becomes to the environmentally imposed sequence, the more likely the offspring is to survive to reproduce.
Once again you're citing unknown evolutionists saying things that heaven only knows were really said, and obviously I wasn't trying to describe things at the level of detail of fixing genes within populations.
And yet descent with modification through selection and mutation happens. And since we understand reproduction and mutation we are able to model them, just like any other natural process we understand. Two different threads of objection to your information theory position are being followed in this thread, and both are valid. One provides illustration that the very process that you claim information theory renders impossible most definitely has occurred and is still occurring. The other shows the ways in which you misunderstand information theory, for instance by attaching unrelated requirements like utility and intelligence. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lewissian Member (Idle past 4726 days) Posts: 18 From: USA Joined: |
Deleted.
Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024