|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
and you'll notice the silence on the information front from them since we started this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
PaulK writes: 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. Oh, okay. Can you point me to the relevant section? Or is it referenced in a message in this thread?
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. You're confusing the encoding (the DNA) with the information it encodes. That's the same mistake as saying that the amount of information in a book is equal to its size in bytes on a disk. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dr Adequate writes: But that's the whole point. Didn't you read the article? Maybe. I couldn't find a link to the article in this thread, so I made a guess as to which one it was over at SkepticWiki, and no one has confirmed my guess yet. The article I found appears to contain errors, or I don't understand it.
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. Rather than me trying to figure out where in some article the argument appears, maybe someone could present the argument in this thread? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I told you back in Message 28 The section you want is called ""Problem 2: A Mathematical Argument"
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I think Dr. Adequate is referring to the section A Mathemtical Argument in your linked page.
I don't think it actually works, because of this section:
quote: 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. Essentially, it's like arguing that there must be a change in letter in the sentence 'I don't think it actually works' that increases the information content of the sentence because after I've corrupted it to 'I dok't think it actually works' changing it back again corrects the error. Edited by Mr Jack, : Correction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dr Adequate writes: 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. 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. Information theory shares a great deal conceptually with 2LOT and the concept of entropy. It's easy for those on the science side to make incorrect statements about 2LOT because how it really works can be very unintuitive. Information theory is the same way. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
PaulK writes: I told you back in Message 28 The section you want is called ""Problem 2: A Mathematical Argument" Oops, you're right. I guess I got caught up replying to your "straight binary encoding" statement, speaking of which:
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. 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? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Interesting that you have a problem with that quote because I think I actually buy it, let me quote it again:
quote: I agree with the sense of your objection that says, I think, that one can't assume that a mutation *must* increase information, but I don't think it applies to the quote because to me he's saying to assume we're considering a mutation that does actually increase information. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Oh, wow, what a beautiful insight into the creationist mind! I think you must be right. So if Dr Adequate's approach isn't, er, adequate, then I wonder how one might compose an argument that creationists would accept that de novo information is not impossible.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024