Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jerry's Calculation of Entropy in Genome
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 1 of 23 (207279)
05-12-2005 1:03 AM


I've been away from the computer for a while, and sadly the topic where Jerry and I were discussing his calculation was closed. The conversation was getting a bit messy anyway, so I would just like to comment on your calculation one more time and get a response. The original conversation started with this message:
http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design in Universities -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design in Universities
The calculation was
quote:
I then introduced the mathematics to show this deterioration of the human genome in order to quantify it: I began by throwing out a formula from The University of New South Wales, physics department:
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deleteriously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy.
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
There is more than one way to skin a cat, of course. I can stick joules and degrees Kelvin in Boltzmann's formula for the math purest, but most no longer do this.
This math shows the macroevolution inherent in Darwinism standing refuted both scientifically (the study) and mathematically because our final calculation shows increasing entropy in the human genome and therefore disorganization in that genome for the last 6 million years. There is no evidence it has been any different in the annals of human history.
Jerry is putting nucleotides into two categories for this calculation, ancestral and deleteriously mutated. After this, he uses the equation (N1+N2)!/(N1!N2!) to calculate the supposed gain in entropy of the genome after one generation of deleterious mutations using the Eyre-Walker results of 1.6 per generation.
So here's my counter, using a Reductio Ad Adsurdum type argument. It's very simple.
Jerry supposes the entropy will go up from some ideal ancestral state, and this will be correlated with an information loss. He uses the calculation above.
N1 will represent ancestral nucleotides, N2 will represent deleteriously mutated nucleotides. The original entropy, before the mutations, is:
(N1+0)!/(N1!0!)=1
After one round of mutations:
(N1+N2)!(N1!N2)!> 1
Eventually, we'll reach a point where we have more deleterious mutations than we have ancestral nucleotides. After this, entropy will begin to decrease.
So, the more deleterious mutations that accumlate after that point, the more the entropy will decrease until it reaches 1 again.
This goes against the original statement that "an increase in entropy is correlated with a loss of information", since now a decrease in entropy will be correlated with a loss of information.
It also goes against the notion that entropy is measure of disorder, since as disorder goes up (in the sense that information is being lost) entropy decreases. This seems absurd.
I would like to remind Jerry that entropy is a state function, and doesn't depend on the path taken to get that particular state. So replying that an organism will be extinct by the time the mutations reach that level is not a counterargument. It's also way off target since we are not talking about an organism but the entropy associated with the genome. The fate of the organism after the change in the genome isn't relevant.
So to summarize, if I have understood the calculation, it seems that a decrease in information can result in a decrease in entropy (not an increase).
Anyone is welcome to comment, especially if they see an error in my reasoning.
This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-12-2005 06:53 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 05-12-2005 1:08 AM JustinC has replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2005 3:01 AM JustinC has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 23 (207281)
05-12-2005 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
05-12-2005 1:03 AM


A link to the old thread?
It would be useful to have a link to the old thread and, if needed, a summary of that discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 05-12-2005 1:03 AM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JustinC, posted 05-12-2005 6:54 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 3 of 23 (207513)
05-12-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
05-12-2005 1:08 AM


Re: A link to the old thread?
Link Added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 05-12-2005 1:08 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 23 (207527)
05-12-2005 7:40 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 23 (207627)
05-13-2005 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
05-12-2005 1:03 AM


Some comments
1) Jerry is wrong about the biology. The figure of 1.6 is NOT directly related to the figure of 41,471. The first is the estimated number of deleterious mutations per generation. The second is the number of nucleotides examined in the study. Jerry's use of the figures has no basis in the study.
2) Jerry is wrong about the maths. He certainly DIDN'T calculate
(41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)!
How do I know ? Because the factorial operation (denoted by '!') is only defined for integers. The calculation is nonsense, since the denominator for the ratio is undefined.
3) Jerry is wrong about configurational entropy. Jerry's entropy argument works in exactly the same way for ANY binary classification of genes or mutations, not just "detrimental"/"not detrimental". If you chose to look at beneficial rather than detrimental mutations you would find that each beneficial mutation increased the entropy. This form of entropy depends very much how the problem is framed. And it is not valid to assume that the entropy will tend towards the maximum for every possible measure because different measures give different results.
There are other serious problems, but I think that those will do for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 05-12-2005 1:03 AM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-13-2005 3:32 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 05-13-2005 8:02 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2005 10:24 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 6 of 23 (207632)
05-13-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
05-13-2005 3:01 AM


1.6!(?!)
LOL. I'm glad someone was paying attention...
Nice catch.

Mat 27:5 And he went and hanged himself
Luk 10:37 Go, and do thou likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2005 3:01 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 5:04 AM Dead Parrot has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 23 (207652)
05-13-2005 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dead Parrot
05-13-2005 3:32 AM


Re: 1.6!(?!)
Um...Don't celebrate just yet. Nitwit Ned has not got me silenced just yet. But he's working on it. I fully intend to get to this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-13-2005 3:32 AM Dead Parrot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-13-2005 5:26 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 8 of 23 (207658)
05-13-2005 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-13-2005 5:04 AM


Re: 1.6!(?!)
Um...Don't celebrate just yet. Nitwit Ned has not got me silenced just yet. But he's working on it. I fully intend to get to this thread.
At which you will prove that 1.6! isn't gibberish? We await with baited breath...

Mat 27:5 And he went and hanged himself
Luk 10:37 Go, and do thou likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 5:04 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 5:43 AM Dead Parrot has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (207660)
05-13-2005 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dead Parrot
05-13-2005 5:26 AM


Re: 1.6!(?!)
I just wonder where that nose has been. ~~~Shudder~~~

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-13-2005 5:26 AM Dead Parrot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-13-2005 6:00 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 10 of 23 (207662)
05-13-2005 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-13-2005 5:43 AM


Re: 1.6!(?!)
That's not quite the amazing mathematics I was expecting. Have another go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 5:43 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 8:06 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 23 (207683)
05-13-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
05-13-2005 3:01 AM


OT: could be defined
How do I know ? Because the factorial operation (denoted by '!') is only defined for integers. The calculation is nonsense, since the denominator for the ratio is undefined.
Factorial is defined only for positive integers. There is, of course, the gamma function which equals (N-1)! for all positive integer N and is analytic everywhere in the complex plane except 0 and the negative integers. But I bet the gamma function is far beyond Jerry's abilities.
ABE: Of course, the exclamation point is never used to indicate gamma(x), so it's not possible that Jerry really meant gamma(1.6).
This message has been edited by JonF, 05-13-2005 08:04 AM
This message has been edited by JonF, 05-13-2005 09:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2005 3:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 23 (207685)
05-13-2005 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dead Parrot
05-13-2005 6:00 AM


Re: 1.6!(?!)
even if 1.6! weren't uhh, what's the word? irrational? imaginary? impossible? insane?
...i'd seriously doubt they did the calculation anyways. not on a calculator at least. my ti89 (otherwise known as "proof god exists") craps itself trying to do a factorial of a five digit number.
it takes maple to crank out this enormous number. anyone else here have maple or a similar program? i considered posting 41471!, but, well, it'd severly piss off everyone trying to READ this thread. instead, i'll just post a screenshot.
you'll have to take my word for it that there's 32 and half more screens where that came from.
edit: checking the (incorrect) calculation in maple, btw, it does render the same answer. maple uses, probably, the same algorithm that will allow it to (incorrectly) render factorials of decimals.
at first, i thought even that bit of calculation was wrong, but i missed a pair of parenthesis. because the op did and i copied that.
order of operations, kids.
quote:
> W:=(41469.4 + 1.6)! / ((41469.4)!*(1.6)!);
W := 0.1710661910*108
> W:=(41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!*(1.6)!;
W := 0.3496295939*108
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-13-2005 08:13 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-13-2005 6:00 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 23 (207917)
05-13-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
05-13-2005 3:01 AM


How do I know ? Because the factorial operation (denoted by '!') is only defined for integers. The calculation is nonsense, since the denominator for the ratio is undefined.
actually it is a possible lack of math formalism being exhibited ...
I enter 1.6 into my windoze {calculator\"scientific setting"} and hit the {n!} button and get 1.4296245588603044182985600527885
I also got a message that "the requested operation may take a long time to complete: do you want to continue?" when I asked it to compute 41469.4!
the answer for that is 1.4982978786211478993674730926215e+173487
the actual function for real numbers is called the gamma function
Gamma Function -- from Wolfram MathWorld
where it "is defined to be an extension of the factorial to complex and real number arguments."
and this would be what the calculator is actually using, and someone just using the button would not be aware of this difference.
the original use in the formula is for where you have a set on {N} items (an integer) and two (integer) subsets {M} and not{M} where {M}+not{M}={N}
as would be the case where you had an identified number of microstates (you don't get half a state)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2005 3:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 14 of 23 (208102)
05-14-2005 3:51 PM


is it worth it?
Jerry Don, the Gospel Music distributor, simply will not (cannot?) admit hi sown limitations. He has started and restarted threads on this topic at ARN, some lasting dozens of pages, most posts showing Jerry Don's his errors (including one comical series of exchanges in which Jerry Don chastized all the 'PhDs' for not being able to handle his math, and later it was discovered that Jerry Don had been pushing the wrong button on his calculator!). Yet no admission, no humility form Jerry Don. I once engaged him in a 'moderated' debate at OCW. The agreed upon topic was "The field of molecular phylogenetics, especially the use of DNA sequence data in reconstructing phylogenies, has provided strong evidence supportive of evolutionary hypotheses of common descent", with me in the affirmative, and in Jerry Don's first response, he was off topic, and never went back on.
He does not understand enough to know when he is wrong. It is like a regular Red Queen exercise trying to get anywhere with him.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2005 7:29 PM derwood has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 23 (208170)
05-14-2005 6:35 PM


Justin:
Shouldn't take long to put this whole thread to bed. The math I used simply estimated the entropy increase in the FIRST GENERATION.
I calculated S. This math will not calculate continually changing entropies from generation to generation because that it is not S, but deltaS. You are assuming:
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
deltaS = 9.98 x 10^-23,
This is not correct!
To get deltaS you then have to take that first generation down the lineage:
deltaS = S(final) - S(initial)
As you can see, since the study showed a steady accumulation of 1.6 mutations per generation, entropy will NEVER begin to decrease, so this should communicate to you that you're probably not doing something right.
Paul:
quote:
The figure of 1.6 is NOT directly related to the figure of 41,471. The first is the estimated number of deleterious mutations per generation. The second is the number of nucleotides examined in the study. Jerry's use of the figures has no basis in the study.
Ok, I just went with nucleotides rather than the triplex. Had you rather I divide the nucleotides into codons and calculate it that way? Doesn't matter to me as you STILL are going to see rising entropy.
quote:
Because the factorial operation (denoted by '!') is only defined for integers.
I would teach it this way too if I were instructing high schoolers but it ISN'T true and especially so when we get into higher math. I was simply showing whether entropy was positive or negative. When absolute accuracy is necessary, this is not a problem either as there are many excellent programs out there which will accurately calculate fractions of integers using the natural log of a continuous probability distribution. In fact, if I'm not mistaken (couldn't tell with a brief Google) this is what the Windows calculator does.
quote:
If you chose to look at beneficial rather than detrimental mutations you would find that each beneficial mutation increased the entropy.
You can't show me a half dozen beneficial mutations. Much less enough accumulating to offset the kind of dramatic accumulations of deleterious ones we see in the human genome. Not a factor to consider at all.
RAZD:
quote:
as would be the case where you had an identified number of microstates (you don't get half a state)
Normally true but we often come across fractional states when we average something as was done in that study.
That's all that needs addressed on this thread. I think the rest of you are just slinging some mud because you do not like what that study showed. I didn't do it, I just quoted it. Don't kill the messenger.

Design Dynamics

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 6:39 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 19 by JustinC, posted 05-14-2005 8:37 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2005 6:47 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024