Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6166 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 106 of 310 (286576)
02-14-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
02-13-2006 3:23 PM


Re: An actual definition
Hey Ned...are you aka AdminNosy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2006 3:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 3:40 PM Garrett has replied

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


Message 107 of 310 (286577)
02-14-2006 3:38 PM


T o p i c ! -- note to Randman
This thread is about to be given a short term closure until all participants understand what the topic is.
Randman specific:
Unless you are willing to define "information", "meaning" or GI in this thread do not post. Anything else you contribute is almost certain to be off topic and will get you suspended.

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 108 of 310 (286578)
02-14-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by randman
02-14-2006 3:22 PM


Re: what's good for the goose...
Actually randman it may just be that no one you have asked is equipped to or cares to answer your question about randomness because it is off topic for this thread. I'll provide my response to you and no further more unless you want to open up a thread to define randomness. You question though to have it defined is just as valid as our continual persistance for the need to define information.
I would like to talk about randomness in terms of a sequence because that is the easiest to talk about. A workable definition of a random sequence, for the purposes of these discussions, would be a sequence of numbers, letters, events, etc for which there is no identifiable closed form for determining the next item in the sequence.
If mutations were truly not random there there should be a way or a mechanism for determining what the next mutation will be. All one would have to do to show that mutations are not random would be to provide this mechanism.
I have found though that often when you bring up randomness it comes in the context of being purposeless. If you really do want to equate randomness with purpose or lack there of then truly you have gone beyond the bounds of what we can answer. There is no way to know if randomness has purpose. Maybe God is the great eternal chaos generator. The point here being that no fruitful discussion can proceed when the two terms are equated in such a way.
If you want to talk more about randomness I will participate with you in the appropriate seperate thread.
Thanks,

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 3:22 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-14-2006 3:56 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 109 of 310 (286579)
02-14-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Garrett
02-14-2006 3:38 PM


aka
Yes. NN and AN share the same fingers to type.
It is generally taken as bad form to admin and participate in the same thread.
I'm chosing too. Please take any specfic objection (this applies to anyone) to the thread for that purpose.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 3:38 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 3:46 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 110 of 310 (286580)
02-14-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chiroptera
02-14-2006 2:10 PM


T o p i c !
Chiroptera the topic is reasonably narrowly defined. Stick to it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2006 2:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2006 3:53 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6166 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 111 of 310 (286583)
02-14-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Gary
02-13-2006 4:31 PM


Will address this tomorrow if time permits. Sufficive to say it's another example of a beneficial result from a deleterious action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Gary, posted 02-13-2006 4:31 PM Gary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Gary, posted 02-14-2006 3:48 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 115 by Jazzns, posted 02-14-2006 3:49 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 117 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 3:55 PM Garrett has replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6166 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 112 of 310 (286584)
02-14-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AdminNosy
02-14-2006 3:40 PM


Re: aka
No problem here....just noticed and thought I'd ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 3:40 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 113 of 310 (286585)
02-14-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Garrett
02-14-2006 3:31 PM


T o p i c !
Totally OFF TOPIC!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 3:31 PM Garrett has not replied

Gary
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 310 (286586)
02-14-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Garrett
02-14-2006 3:45 PM


If the result is beneficial I don't see how it the mechanism that caused it is deleterious. It seems like your definition of "deleterious" is pretty arbitrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 3:45 PM Garrett has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 115 of 310 (286587)
02-14-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Garrett
02-14-2006 3:45 PM


Heads up.
Hey Garrett. I know you are being flooded with responses but I just wanted to point out one of my previous posts Message 87 specifically with regards to being able to derive a metric. I see a number of subsequent posts of your where my point stands in refutation of comparison of the quantity of specified complexity and meaning.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 3:45 PM Garrett has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 310 (286588)
02-14-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by AdminNosy
02-14-2006 3:41 PM


Huh?
I don't understand your comment since a careful reading of the post to which you linked would show that I was saying the same thing.
However, in a subsequent post I made the statement:
However, seeing that evolution has occurred, that humans did evolve from non-human apes, that mammals did evolve from amphibians, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs, and that all known life does have a common ancestor, then any mathematical model that says that this is impossible must be flawed.
Could you make a determination whether that is on topic?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 3:41 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 117 of 310 (286589)
02-14-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Garrett
02-14-2006 3:45 PM


A reminder for Garrett
The main theme of responses to you is that whatever you've posted or referenced no one knows how to use if to calculate an amount of "specfied complexity". Since NO ONE can calculate that we can't say if mutations can cause in increase in it or not.
Without the ability to do the calculation the entire thread is meaningless.
Since you think it can be done all you have to do is take as easy, most to the point example you want and do the calculation. That will then allow the thread to move forward again.
If this doesn't happen soon the thread will be closed while everyone reviews what the topic is and figures out how to stick to it.
Since "random" does appear in the title that will have to be answered eventually. Let's leave it for now and come back to it.
Pretend, just for now, that it says:
"Can mutations (caused by any means at all) cause an increase in information in the genome?"
Then we can come back to the "cause".
ABE:
BTW if you are very careful at this it should be possible to demonstrate (but I'm not sure I could do it well) that the answer is NO.
However, if you get there you will find you still haven't done any damage to the credibility of the evolutionary explanation but you will have learned something.
(btw the sequel-- heading off on that path before we get the "spicified complexity" issue handled is OFF TOPIC 2 ).
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-14-2006 03:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 3:45 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 4:15 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 118 of 310 (286592)
02-14-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Jazzns
02-14-2006 3:39 PM


Re: what's good for the goose...
Randomness in terms of information theory has a fairly precise definition. As someone has correctly stated a couple times now, randomness communicates the most information. This is because the degree to which the next bit of information can be accurately predicted is information that can't be communicated because it is information that is already known. In classical information theory, you can't get credit for telling someone something he already knows. An analogy would be the letter "Q" in the english language. If our message set consisted of the words of the english language spelled out using the 26 letters, then anytime a "Q" was received it would be known that the next letter is "U", and so no information is actually communicated by transmitting the "U". The "U" is considered redundant information.
A communication medium is used to transmit the messages of a message set. If all messages are equally likely then this is the fully random case, and the receiver of the message knows that the probability of receiving any particular message of the message set is 1/Nm, where Nm is the number of messages in the message set. If the messages are not all equally likely then the calculation of the probability of receiving a given message from the set is more complicated, as is calculating the amount of information transmitted by any single message.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Jazzns, posted 02-14-2006 3:39 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 3:59 PM Percy has replied
 Message 121 by JonF, posted 02-14-2006 4:07 PM Percy has replied
 Message 126 by Jazzns, posted 02-14-2006 5:36 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 119 of 310 (286593)
02-14-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
02-14-2006 3:56 PM


Randomness and THE TOPIC
While randomness is, eventually part of the topic it is not going to help to get deep into it now.
Please refrain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-14-2006 3:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 02-14-2006 4:14 PM AdminNosy has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 120 of 310 (286595)
02-14-2006 4:05 PM


Back on Topic
Since AdminNosy has asked us to get back on topic I suggest that we return to my ealier challenge to rank organisms according to the "information content" of their genome.
If this can not be done the argument should be dropped.
I'll give you some organisms:
Cat, Dog, Horse, Cow, Pig, Goat, Bear
Please rank these 1 through 7 with 1 being "most information" and 7 being "least information".
If these organisms are problematic we can use a simpler example:
Which genome has more "information": the cat or dog genome?

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024