Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 80 (531207)
10-16-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
10-16-2009 1:29 PM


I doubt that anyone has bothered to read Gitt's book. I've looked at some stuff on the web, and it looks as if Gitt information is completely irrelevant. (There's no good reason to think that there is any "Gitt information" in DNA, nor is here a good way to measure it).
(I should also add that it doesn't look as if Gitt has much understanding of information theory. )

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 80 (531665)
10-19-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
10-19-2009 9:45 AM


Re: Quantification
quote:
I'm seeing the same problem in this thread.
I think you are missing the point. The point of the argument is to show that even without a defined measure, given a few sensible axioms it must be possible for mutations to increase information. Relying on a specific measure would be self-defeating.

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 27 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 10:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 80 (531671)
10-19-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
10-19-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Quantification
The section you quote actually precedes the argument that Dr Adequate refers to (labelled "Problem 2: A Mathematical Argument") which partly explains your problem.
I think that the specific point you object to refers to a straight binary encoding, rather than your arbitrary selection of "messages".

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 29 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 10:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 80 (531680)
10-19-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
10-19-2009 10:55 AM


Re: Quantification
quote:
Well, I'll try to slog on, but to the extent that his conclusions depend upon faulty assumptions they will in turn be faulty.
The relevant section is short and largely self-contained. I think that you are pretty much wasting your time trying to critique the other sections.
quote:
There's no such thing as a "straight binary encoding."
That is a weird thing to say. Of course you can produce a straight binary encoding of a DNA sequence. SImply assign a distinct pair of bits to each of the 4 possible bases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 10:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 11:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 80 (531693)
10-19-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
10-19-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Quantification
quote:
Oh, okay. Can you point me to the relevant section? Or is it referenced in a message in this thread?
I told you back in Message 28 The section you want is called ""Problem 2: A Mathematical Argument"
quote:
You're confusing the encoding (the DNA) with the information it encodes.
I'm sorry Percy but I hardly think that it is likely that I am confused about what I meant. And I meant a straight binary encoding of the DNA sequence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 11:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 12:11 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 80 (531704)
10-19-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
10-19-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Quantification
quote:
Well, let me put it another way. Clearly you understand precisely what you mean, and clearly I don't. Can you help me understand what you're saying?
My interpretation of the bit about adding DNA adding "bits" refers to a straight binary encoding of the DNA.
(I believe that it would also work with Shannon information if the set of messages is taken as the individual bases rather than sequences, which seems to me to be the most natural way of interpreting it in context).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 12:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 80 (531710)
10-19-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 11:56 AM


Re: A flawed mathematical argument?
The section you quote works against the argument that all mutations must decrease information. i.e. if the original mutation decreased information then the reverse mutation - by restoring the string to its original state - must increase information.
Therefore if mutations occur, and if all mutations can be reversed by another mutation it cannot be the case that all possible mutations will decrease information (since some would simply reverse a previous mutation).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 11:56 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 66 of 80 (531798)
10-20-2009 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
10-19-2009 10:59 PM


I doubt that Gitts; book is worth reading. The basics are on the web for free - and based on those I can't say that the book is worth paying money for.
If you have read it and you think that it makes valid points then you can certainly bring those up. Have you read it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 10-19-2009 10:59 PM slevesque has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 80 (531803)
10-20-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by slevesque
10-20-2009 2:20 AM


Re: Gitt's Book
I'll be very surprised if anyone has read Gitts book because it is a) obscure and b) appears to be very bad. I don't think that it has anything useful to contribute to the discussion other than giving some indication of the misunderstandings on the creationist side.
So far as I'm concerned the most interesting thing about Gitt is the creationist attempt to make his (weak) credentials seem much better than they really are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 2:20 AM slevesque 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