Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 80 (531127)
10-16-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-15-2009 7:16 PM


Personally I don't have any particular issues with these axioms although I don't see how 'no DNA' is a workable null string. 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.
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 [thread=-9419], 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.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-15-2009 7:16 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2009 9:19 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2009 10:04 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 10-17-2009 9:01 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 80 (531140)
10-16-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
10-16-2009 9:19 AM


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.
I agree, I just don't see how it could actually be useful to state this. What use is it to define this null string?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2009 9:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2009 10:14 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 80 (531165)
10-16-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
10-16-2009 10:14 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. Obviously with such an approach you can never have more information than the 'perfect' pre-fall state. You can see often this line of thinking in Smooth Operator's arguments.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2009 10:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2009 12:34 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 18 of 80 (531623)
10-19-2009 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
10-17-2009 12:34 AM


It is hardly news that creationist/Iders use logically flawed arguments. I'm just pointing out that these are the arguments they use.
I found your explanation here very closely follows a critique in a paper I was reading where they discuss Muller's ratchet (Mustonnen and Lassig, 2009).
Mustonnen and Lassig writes:
It is instructive to contrast this view of adaptive evolution with Muller's ratchet, a classical model of evolution by deleterious substitutions [citations removed] . This model postulates a well-adapted initial state of the genome so that all, or the vast majority of, mutations have negative fitness effects. Continuous fixations of slightly deleterious changes then lead to a stationary decline in fitness (i.e. to negative values of Φ). Similarly to the infinite-sites approximation, this model neglects compensatory mutations. In a picture of a finite number of sites, it becomes clear that every deleterious substitution leads to the opportunity for at least one compensatory beneficial mutation (or more, if the locus contributes to a quantitative trait), so that the rate of beneficial substitutions increases with decreasing fitness.
...
Thus, we reach a conclusion contrary to Muller's ratchet. Because selection in biological systems is generically time-dependent, decline of fitness is less likely even as a transient state than suggested by Muller's ratchet: the model offers no explanation of how a well-adapted initial state without opportunities of beneficial mutations is reached in the first place.
And we all know how much the ID camp love Muller's ratchet.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2009 12:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 7:05 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 24 of 80 (531663)
10-19-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
10-19-2009 9:45 AM


Re: Quantification
I believe λ is Dr. A's null string which contains no DNA.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 9:45 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 73 of 80 (531838)
10-20-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
10-19-2009 10:59 PM


Gitt information
I certainly haven't read it, but I have read several things he has published online about his 'measure' of information. I don't see how expanding his thesis to book length is going to make his numerous unwarranted assumptions magically warranted. If you feel his assumptions are reasonable you should go to the [thread=-8902] thread and tell us why.
TTFN,
WK

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

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 79 of 80 (532087)
10-21-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
10-21-2009 8:39 AM


Don't even know enough to be wrong
How do you help someone understand that new information can be created when they don't understand information theory or even have a useful definition of information?
For an ongoing example see Kaichos man's recent thread, [thread=-13889].
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 10-21-2009 8:39 AM 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