Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4 of 80 (531135)
10-16-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
10-16-2009 9:00 AM


Personally I don't have any particular issues with these axioms although I don't see how 'no DNA' is a workable null string.
I don't see what else one could mean by a null string, though perhaps that's because I'm a mathematician. A null string is one not containing any letters, and is conventionally written as λ.
Generally a randomly generated sequence is more commonly used as a null state in bioinformatics, though I can see how this may confuse things since a random string obviously has some information by a number of metrics.
Well, I think everyone would have to admit that λ contains no information by any sensible metric; which is why I introduced it into the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 9:00 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 9:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 80 (531152)
10-16-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
10-16-2009 9:23 AM


I agree, I just don't see how it could actually be useful to state this.
Well, the axiom is used in the second part of the proof, where it's shown that mutations can't all conserve information.
What use is it to define this null string?
What use is it to have a number for zero?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 9:23 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 11:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 80 (531319)
10-17-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Wounded King
10-16-2009 11:12 AM


OK, looking at the SkepticWiki page I see how the argument goes and where the 'no DNA' state fits in.
I think this argument fails to address the common creationist approach that we see here quite often where they equate maximum information to conforming to a specific sequence, presumably the ideal pre-fall sequence or similar.
In the first place, that would not constitute an argument that mutations cannot increase information, merely that the net effect of mutations since creation can't have been to increase information.
In the second place, and more importantly, that would be a vast act of petitio principii. Their argument goes: "Evolution requires an increase of information. Mutations can't increase information. Therefore evolution is impossible". Now, if to justify the second premise in that line of reasoning, they have to add, as a premise, the claim that species were brought into existence by an act of fiat creation by God, then this is fallacious. If we grant them that as a premise, then what further do we have to discuss? It is obviously illegitimate to argue for creationism based on the premise that creation happened.
I might as well argue: "Evolution requires an increase of information. We know that all species are a product of evolution. Therefore mutations can increase information." But there would be something rather dubious, in the context of this argument, about my introducing the second statement as a premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 11:12 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 10-19-2009 6:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 80 (531430)
10-17-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AnswersInGenitals
10-17-2009 5:48 PM


Re: Some information on information.
where you can fill in the blanks with whatever you want. Just to be my usual obnoxious self, let me insert "shit" into the blanks.
* sighs gently, drums fingers gently on desk *
You may, if you wish to.
But to what then would correspond to the fact that for every mutation there is an inverse mutation?
If you wish to stipulate that for every grishnakhah, where grishnakhah is defined as a change of the information in shit, there is an inverse grishnakhah ... and if you wished to stipulate that you were not talking about "information", but about xyryxzlu, so long as you are willing to state that xyryxzlu was some quantity to which could be assigned a real number greater than or equal to zero ... and if you wished to stipulate that grishnakhahs could reduce the quantity of shit ... and if you agreed that the quantity of shit could never be less then zero ... and if you would agree that the null shit consisting of no shit had no xyryxzlu, and if you agreed that some shit had a strictly positive value of xyryxzlu ... then I guess that I could prove that some grishnakhahs increased the xyryxzlu of shit.
That's why it's a logical analysis. It doesn't matter what we think the words mean, what matters is the logical relations between them.
I really thought you were smarter than this, what is your point?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-17-2009 5:48 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 80 (531441)
10-17-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
10-17-2009 9:01 PM


But here you and WK are talking about information in a gene pool. I'm talking about information in a genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 10-17-2009 9:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 10-18-2009 7:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 80 (531630)
10-19-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
10-18-2009 7:22 AM


If you're only considering the genes of a single individual then reproduction cannot be part of the conversation, so you must be looking at DNAs role in controlling the cell machinery. Do I have that right?
No, no, not at all. I'm talking about germ-line mutations. What I'm analyzing is the question of "information" (whatever that is) increasing or decreasing if we follow a single line of descent. We go from the genome of one individual ... to the genome of the next descendant ... to the genome of the next descendant ... and so forth.
My point there was that I'm looking at the genomes of individuals along a line of descent, I'm not considering the amount of information in a gene pool.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 10-18-2009 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 9:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 80 (531633)
10-19-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wounded King
10-19-2009 6:14 AM


It is hardly news that creationist/Iders use logically flawed arguments. I'm just pointing out that these are the arguments they use.
And I'm just pointing out why they're wrong. If you're going to say: "Creationists would put up such-and-such an argument", then I am going to reply by saying why that argument is deeply flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 10-19-2009 6:14 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 80 (531685)
10-19-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
10-19-2009 9:45 AM


Re: Quantification
I'm seeing the same problem in this thread.
But that's the whole point. Didn't you read the article?
The point is that I can prove that it is possible for mutations to increase information given only the following axioms:
* The null string contains no information.
* Two identical strings contain the same amount of information.
The whole point is that if any creationist will agree that whatever he means by "information", that must be true of "information", then I can, as the young people say, "pwn" him even if he won't say anything else about what he means by "information".
The fact that "information" isn't well-defined is the WHOLE DAMN POINT. So long as whatever they're talking about when they say "information" obeys these two utterly sensible axioms, we can slap down their argument even though they can't explain what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 9:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 10-19-2009 11:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 11:50 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 80 (531690)
10-19-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
10-19-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Quantification
If by "bits" he means a measure of information ...
By "bits" I meant bits. Not a measure of information, but that particular measure of information. The length of the string of DNA, times two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 10:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 12:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 80 (531694)
10-19-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
10-19-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Quantification
Apparently if we don't have any creationists around to be stupid, you'll step in and do it for them.
On the one hand, this is very generous and noble-minded of you. On the other hand, don't you feel a certain sense of embarrassment about being wrong?
Oh come on. Where is the relevant section? you ask. It's the one we're talking about.
Your second point I believe I just answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 11:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 80 (531720)
10-19-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
10-19-2009 12:03 PM


Re: Quantification
Sorry, I'm just not getting what you're saying. Are you using the units of bits of Shannon information? It doesn't seem like it, because you're defining the amount of information in a string of DNA as double its length.
I mean bits, dammit. Bits. Bits. Bits. Bits. Bits. The number of binary digits that would encode the sequence of DNA. Which, given that DNA consists of a sequence of four bases, is the length of the sequence of DNA, times two.
How simple can this be? When I said "bits", I meant "bits". By which I meant bits. I did not mean the number of bits that you could compress it into if you had a smart compression algorithm, that's why in the next paragraph I start talking about Kolmogorov complexity. When I said "bits", I meant bits. Which is why I said "bits".
BITS.
Do you now see what I mean, or do I have to hit you repeatedly in the face with a copy of Information Theory For Dummies until you plead for mercy?
Sheesh.
This is actually off-topic, since the statement that you're misunderstanding is not the statement under discussion. But you're still wrong.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 12:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 2:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 80 (531722)
10-19-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 11:56 AM


Re: A flawed mathematical argument?
The problem here is that the first mutation applies to the original sequence, whereas the second mutation applies to the modified sequence; they do not both refer to the same sequence.
But their composition gets you back to the sequence you started with. So if one of them destroys information, the other one creates it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 11:56 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 3:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 80 (531723)
10-19-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 12:26 PM


Re: A flawed mathematical argument?
The problem as I see it is that the argument only shows that a mutation that increases information exists only in the space of all possible genes; not that it applies to any gene currently kicking around in living things. I'm sure that a Creationist would argue that all information containing genes were created at the beginning. And they'd concede the argument shows it's possible to reverse a previous degeneration but not that it shows that it's possible to create de novo information.
See post #12.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 12:26 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 80 (531735)
10-19-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
10-19-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Quantification
I think just a few more insults and the light of understanding is sure to go on in my head. Don't bother trying anything silly like actually explaining anything. Ad hominem is so much more enlightening.
I was not aware that I had made an ad hominem argument. But feel free to point it out to me. Also, feel free to look up the meaning of that quaint old Latin phrase.
I also thought that I had tried to do "something silly like actually explaining something". I thought I'd done that again and again. I thought, stop me if I'm wrong, that I'd shouted the word BITS in your face repeatedly and explained what I meant by that. Perhaps the failure is mine, but I have really tried to get my point across.
If you are still puzzled as to what I meant when I said "bits", then I hardly know what to do about this situation. Here we are. What do you not understand?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 2:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 3:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 80 (531737)
10-19-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
10-19-2009 2:31 PM


I'm not talking about explicit numbers versus variables. It's no problem comparing x to x+1 to x+2 and so forth. But you can't assume that:
Where the function I is the amount of information. It is a false assumption that adding a mutation to DNA increases its information.
But that is not what he is "assuming". He did not claim that every mutation increases information. That is not what he claims.
Edited by Admin, : Latex rerendered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 2:31 PM Percy has seen this message but 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