Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 281 of 315 (518256)
08-04-2009 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Smooth Operator
08-04-2009 5:39 PM


Yes you did lose it. And yes it did change. But random changes do not just change things. The deteriorate them.
Bare assertion is no substitute for actual facts. Give us some scientific data, in what way has the substitution in the Gyrase caused a deterioration?
I'm quite prepared to accept it might cause a change of function, but not in the complete absence of any evidence which is al you or your source provide. My own literature searches have not produced anything suggesting a loss of function, but many of the papers on such mutations don't look into that aspect of things.
In the gyrase's case, the change was not noticeable. But the loss of information occured.
So you say, but where is the evidence? And you claim evolutionists accept things on faith.
I already said, soem mutations are fine tuning. But most of them are loss of information.
So if you are prepared to accept this happens in principle then why not in this particular case? Why couldn't this simply be fine tuning with a benefit, no loss of information but no gain either?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 5:39 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 10:09 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 285 of 315 (518495)
08-06-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Smooth Operator
08-06-2009 10:09 AM


It deteriorated the structure.
Changed the structure.
I never said it was a loss of function. I might be in other cases. But not in this one. It was the loss of ctructure in this case. Which is a loss in information, which over a long period of time, leads to loss of function.
Changed the information, without affecting the function. Aren't you the one making posts supporting the idea of function as an essential component of measuring information in sequence analyses? If so how are you measuring the information change/loss in this case where you admit it doesn't affect the function?
LOSS OF STRUCTURE = LOSS OF FORM = LOSS OF INFORMATION
Change of structure = change of form? = change of information?
Except if you knew any biology you would know that a change in the primary sequence of a protein doesn't necessarily mean a change in the higher level structures. So in fact in many cases a change in the primary structure will not lead to any change in the secondary or tertiary. There are obvious instances where this is not the case, as with the sickle cell anaemia example, but a change in primary sequence need not lead to a change in the higher levels of structure, as you would know if you understood biology. The fact that enough changes will cause a change doesn't mean that any specific change necessarily does, for example not every mutation in haemoglobin leads to sickle cell.
Because the structure deteriorated.
This doesn't get any truer just because you keep repeating it. Other than through its effect on function how can you justify characterising this as a deterioration? Can you quantify the informational loss in the absence of a change in function? If so how?
You simply assume that any change in the amino acid sequence is a loss of information, but there is no reason for anyone else to drink your cool aid unless you can make a more compelling argument than simply repeating your contention ad nauseam.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 10:09 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 10:52 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 290 of 315 (518646)
08-07-2009 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Smooth Operator
08-06-2009 10:52 AM


Exactly, what's the problem?
That a change in information need not be a net loss of information as you assume.
Neither did I say it does. I sad that OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME, these kind of changes lead to loss of functions.
Which is totally irrelevant to this specific case. If a mutation causes no change in function then please tell me how you measure the change in information involved and determine it to be a net loss?
If it was caused by a random change and if the structure is not in it's original form that it is a deterioration.
Only if you assume the 'original' structure, which is in fact just the structure as we first assayed it or what we have determined to be ancestral, is some sort of functional ideal. But if a change causes no net loss of information or function how can you characterise it as deterioration.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 10:52 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-08-2009 4:49 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 294 of 315 (518927)
08-09-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Smooth Operator
08-08-2009 4:49 PM


I never said that. I said it can be fine tuning.
A phrase with no meaning in biology or informatics. What you seem to be doing is actually conceding the point but insisting we change the words to hide the fact.
There are mutations with beneficial effects which do not cause a net loss in information/functional information, we can call this fine tuning if you like, it doesn't change what it is and it doesn't stop the website you directed us to from being wrong to use such an instance as an example of a loss of information.
They do in vast majority of cases. Even if they don't. Even if they just damage the structure slightly, next few mutations will damage it enough to destroy the function.
You aren't answering the question, the question wasn't, 'Do you think most mutations are detrimental?' It was "If a mutation causes no change in function then please tell me how you measure the change in information involved and determine it to be a net loss?".
When your answer doesn't even make grammatical sense in the context of the question, as yours fails to, then you probably aren't answering the right question.
If you just don't know how you would measure it then why not just say so?
A new house is an ideal. If you throw a rock at it and damage it, it lost some of it structure.
Is this a house you are buying furnished? Let me tell you, my house was a show house when I bought it, an ideal home as it were, and it distinctly benefited from my changing some of the light shades and curtains, yet it is as structurally sound and has all the same lighting and window blocking functionality of before the changes.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-08-2009 4:49 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 5:34 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 299 of 315 (520032)
08-19-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Rrhain
08-19-2009 4:06 AM


I was specifically thinking of the Dover case.
You have to laugh, or cry, when creationists can almost in the same breath claim their 'science' is not religiously motivated and then sue for having their religious freedoms violated when they are told they can't teach it.
The openly religious creationists and the ID crowd need to get their stories straight. I think that is one reason why the school board approach is so flawed, they get the most raving fundamentalists to try and present ID as a non-religious scientific alternative and they just can't do it with a straight face. Mind you I can barely write 'ID is a genuine scientific alternative' without feeling the LOL coming on.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Rrhain, posted 08-19-2009 4:06 AM Rrhain has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 302 of 315 (520044)
08-19-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by traderdrew
08-10-2009 2:23 PM


Re: Information
information - 2. the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.
That seems to be a pretty good definition, not useful for quantification perhaps but certainly consonant with Percy's example of new alleles representing new information, i.e. a novel alternative sequence that produces a novel specific effect.
Information in the second definition would not necessarily require a concious recipient. It can refer to a sequence of characters that produce a specific effect. Software contains information but the computer that reads it is obviously not conscious.
The main question as far as ID goes is whether a conscious originator is required. If you read up about Smooth Operator's Gitt information, you will see that a key assumption of Gitt's concept of information is such that it requires a will and a mental source. Such a definition clearly excludes any conception of information as not having an intelligent source and therefore makes axiomatic what ID is still trying to show, that the information in genomes requires an intelligent source. I'm glad if you reject this approach.
The evolutionary conception is that the ordered 'functional' information in the genome is the result of the interaction between the randomly generated variation in genomes, caused by mutation, and the organisms environment leading to differential reproductive success based on the phenotypic variation this genetic variation produces.
In other words mutation is changing the information, including increasing it, but it is natural selection that is leading to the persistence of 'specified' functional information, and over time to 'complex specified information'.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by traderdrew, posted 08-10-2009 2:23 PM traderdrew 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