Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


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 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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 80 (531688)
10-19-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
10-19-2009 11:13 AM


Re: Quantification
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 10-19-2009 11:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 10-19-2009 11:51 AM Percy has replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 11:51 AM Percy has seen this message but 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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 80 (531691)
10-19-2009 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2009 11:33 AM


Re: Quantification
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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 11:56 AM Percy 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

  
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 Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 38 of 80 (531696)
10-19-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
10-19-2009 11:50 AM


A flawed mathematical argument?
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:
If one mutation decreases information, then the opposite mutation must increase it; otherwise, it would be possible for a DNA sequence to undergo two successive opposite mutations, leaving it back exactly how it started, and to have undergone a net decrease of information compared to the original, with which it is identical, in violation of condition 2. It follows that if some mutations decrease information, then others must increase it.
  —SkepticWiki
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 11:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 12:21 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 10-19-2009 12:31 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 1:55 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 39 of 80 (531700)
10-19-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2009 11:44 AM


Re: Quantification
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 11:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 1:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 40 of 80 (531702)
10-19-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
10-19-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Quantification
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 10-19-2009 11:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 10-19-2009 12:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not 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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 42 of 80 (531705)
10-19-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 11:56 AM


Re: A flawed mathematical argument?
Interesting that you have a problem with that quote because I think I actually buy it, let me quote it again:
quote:
If one mutation decreases information, then the opposite mutation must increase it; otherwise, it would be possible for a DNA sequence to undergo two successive opposite mutations, leaving it back exactly how it started, and to have undergone a net decrease of information compared to the original, with which it is identical, in violation of condition 2. It follows that if some mutations decrease information, then others must increase it.
  —SkepticWiki
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

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 43 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 12:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 43 of 80 (531708)
10-19-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
10-19-2009 12:21 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 12:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 12:48 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 1:59 PM Dr Jack has 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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 80 (531712)
10-19-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Jack
10-19-2009 12:26 PM


Re: A flawed mathematical argument?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2009 12:26 PM Dr Jack 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