|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2687 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Seeing that you appeared since your last post on this subject; just wanted to know whether you have figured out how to quantify genetic information yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
There are two ways in which a coin can land on its side, heads or tails. But, there are a almost an infinite number of ways that the coin could land one of the many places along its edge. Therefore, it is practically impossible for a coin flip to land on heads or tails. Errr, no. It is quite obvious that the probability of landing on an edge is infinitesimal in the total result space. Rather the analogy would be that finding a functional proteins would correspond to a flipped coin landing on its edge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
No. have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ah, great. I have no way of quantifying "genetic information". You claimed that you can. So do it.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So, according to you the bigger the number of base pairs together with the bigger the number of genes the 'more the genetic information' an organism has? Is that how you quantify "genetic information"? That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating. Of course I am aware of the C-value paradox. Ohno and others argued that it was due to an accumulation of junk DNA. However the whole idea of junk DNA has taken a hammering in recent years, but perhaps it does provide part of the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
So, again you can't tell us how to measure "genetic information".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one is funny.
CRR writes: That's the way you, yourself proposed.
That would be a naive way of thinking about it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating. Curiously, I think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes. I think that the concept of "information" is meaningless or superfluous, because wherever IDologists try to use it the result is meaningless or it increases via evolutionary changes, and that evolution proceeds without need to refer to it. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I too think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes, because the human DNA contains the information to form specific tissues, organs, and the layout of the human body, all missing from the E. coli DNA.
However I don't think that genetic information is directly proportional to size of the genome, just as I don't think the information contained in a book is directly proportional to the weight or word count. It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I too think that the DNA differences are sufficient to explain the different phenotypes, because the human DNA contains the information to form specific tissues, organs, and the layout of the human body, all missing from the E. coli DNA. We can measure and test DNA, we can parse to see what sections are used for which purposes. It is quantifiable, and the activity of discrete sections can be isolated and monitored, modified and observed to see the changes to the individual.
However I don't think that genetic information is directly proportional to size of the genome, just as I don't think the information contained in a book is directly proportional to the weight or word count. Indeed, you could argue that shorter DNA is more efficient at producing the development\phenotype of the individual. There is certainly a synergy of parts interacting in more complex organisms. Until "information" can be quantified it can not be tested, it cannot be isolated, it cannot be measured, and that is the simple crux of why it is not a usable term: you are left with a purely subjective assessment, just like the purely subjective assessment of beauty.
It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins. Knowledge build on knowledge known, as concepts are invalidated and replaced with new ones. Knowing what is not correct is a better approximation of reality than not knowing it. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating. Does the human genome contain more information than the chimp, mouse, or chicken genome? The human genome is 3 billion bases, and the onion genome is 100 billion bases. Does the onion genome contain more genetic information?
However the whole idea of junk DNA has taken a hammering in recent years, but perhaps it does provide part of the answer. The idea of junk DNA is as strong as ever, if not stronger. More an more data have demonstrated that only ~10% of the human genome is being conserved which is extremely strong evidence that up to 90% of the human genome has no sequence specific function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It used to be thought that 1 gene produced 1 protein, now we know that through alternative splicing one gene can produce thousands of proteins. They could produce different proteins, but tons of evidence is demonstrating that they usually don't. Only in a minority of cases does alternative splicing result in an altered protein with any regularity. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: That would be a naive way of thinking about it, but do you really dispute that the human genome contains more information than the E. coli genome? That I would find fascinating. Using your philosophy of only focusing on features that are lost, a primitive bacteria evolving into a human would be a loss in information because humans would have lost the ability to do many things the bacteria were able to do, such as thrive in anaerobic environments and reproduce rapidly. If evolution occurred exactly how scientists propose it, you would call each and every step a loss in information. A fish evolving into a tetrapod would be a loss in information because the fish loses its fins and loses the ability to swim. A reptile evolving into a placental mammal would be a loss in information because the animal no longer has scales nor the ability to lay eggs. In fact, if we use your definition for a loss in information, the entire process would REQUIRE a loss of information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. Such is the problem you run into when you try to define a gain in information such that evolution can't produce it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
After all of this, CRR was still unable to provide any quantitavive analyses on how to determine whether any organism has "more" or "less" genetic information than another organism. Couldn't tell us how an organism could "gain" or " loose" genetic information. All CRR did was to claim that thumb-sucks count as "science".
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I want to bump this up again. CRR has no way of quantifiying the amount of genetic information in any organism.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024