EvC Forum: Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9003

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 1 of 80 (531018)
10-15-2009 7:16 PM

This has come up more than once. I had forgotten about this analysis and think it deserves a thread all of it's own.

Here is Dr. Adequate's comment( modified somewhat for this thread) lifted from a site he links to:

quote:
With no supplied definition of "information" we can still analyze changes for a wide range of possible definitions.

This site supplies the analysis:
Skeptic Wiki Analysis

There are 3 axioms which must be considered first:
1. Two identical pieces of DNA contain the same amount of information.

2. The "null string" consisting of no DNA contains no information.

3. Some strings of DNA contain information.

Does anyone have any issues with any of these? If so why?

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
	Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 9:00 AM	NosyNed has replied
	Message 13 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-17-2009 5:48 PM	NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9003

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 6 of 80 (531148)
10-16-2009 10:04 AM

Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
10-16-2009 9:00 AM

Identical Strings of DNA

I see no problem with axiom 1 myself but in a number of discussions Percy has used Shannon information and allele number in a way which suggests to me that you would have to qualify it to specify that it also requires the same environment. In Percy's 'new allele => new information' example, see Evolving New Information, the number of alternative alleles and the frequency of the alleles can all change the amount of Shannon information conveyed by sampling one specific allele from the population. Using this approach the information content in a string can be changed by changing the environment rather than the string itself, i.e. in Percy's example the de novo mutation creating a new allele means that the pre-existing allele sequences can communicate more information.

This might require the statement that the two strings are compared in the same environment to be checked for "identicalness" or not.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 9:00 AM		Wounded King has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9003

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 11 of 80 (531241)
10-16-2009 3:50 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
10-16-2009 1:29 PM

Gitt's Info

I have the impression this thread was done just for me

What on Earth would give you that idea?

Actually, triggered by your use of information maybe but since it keeps coming up we might as well have a focus for it.

But, as I've asked on the other thread: Who has read Gitt's book on information ?

I can officially say I haven't, but anyone willing to discuss this will have to answer this question.

Why worry about that yet? Let's have a look at the argument put forward here as it is very simple. From that we might arrive at things we'd want to see in Gitt's argument.

For example: if Gitt's views mean anything either the argument put forward from the 3 axioms here is wrong (which we can determine without reference to Gitt) or Gitt disagrees with one of the three axioms.

How about we review this argument first to see if it is wrong on it's own or not? Then, only if needed, we can go to Gitt to see what he says.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 9 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 1:29 PM		slevesque has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9003

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 22 of 80 (531656)
10-19-2009 9:29 AM

Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
10-19-2009 9:25 AM

Quantification

If you want to know whether information is increasing or decreasing then you need to be able to quantify it. What I haven't been able to figure out yet is how you're quantifying information.

It appears this argument doesn't require a definition of the quantity just as it doesn't require a definition of what is meant by "information". It is more abstract than that -- and simpler.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 9:25 AM		Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 9:45 AM		NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9003

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 32 of 80 (531687)
10-19-2009 11:36 AM

Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2009 11:33 AM

pwned

and you'll notice the silence on the information front from them since we started this.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 11:33 AM		Dr Adequate has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9003

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 59 of 80 (531764)
10-19-2009 5:25 PM

Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 5:06 PM

Weighing DNA

While this is notionally true, how do you propose to do this - in the case of DNA - without having a measure of information?

For this thread it is not necessary to "weigh" the DNA. The logic involved doesn't depend on the measure at all.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 57 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 5:06 PM		Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 61 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 5:48 PM		NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed

Member

Posts: 9003

From: Canada

Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 67 of 80 (531801)
10-20-2009 2:06 AM

Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
10-19-2009 10:59 PM

Gitt's Book

You haven't explained how it has any relevance here. You also haven't answered the questions put forth in the first post. Why not?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 65 by slevesque, posted 10-19-2009 10:59 PM		slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 68 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 2:20 AM		NosyNed has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus)
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0