|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
Hey Ned...are you aka AdminNosy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Chiroptera the topic is reasonably narrowly defined. Stick to it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
Will address this tomorrow if time permits. Sufficive to say it's another example of a beneficial result from a deleterious action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
No problem here....just noticed and thought I'd ask.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Totally OFF TOPIC!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
While randomness is, eventually part of the topic it is not going to help to get deep into it now.
Please refrain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5834 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024