19 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiIs this your definition of information for this discussion?
Is this your definition of information for this discussion?
You'll have to break it down for me a little.
I think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose - say for the growth of a particular type of musc ...[text shortened]... complex, but to what purpose? Functionally, they are identical.
I did not make the original claim; I challenged it, and while challenging it, asked for the definition used to support the claim. No one provided one, but I was asked what I would use if I had to choose the definition. So I provided one. If you don't like it, you're free to offer another one that you feel would make the claim impossible to prove wrong.
I think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose - say for the growth of a particular type of muscle cell.
That sounds reasonable.
Do we know if all the genes are utilized. I understand there is an idea that much of the genes we have a filler. At least, we don't know what the purpose is. But I don't know what the current theory is.
If you aren't familiar with the basic concepts of genetics, then you shouldn't be making claims about whether information can increase or not via evolution. That is a scientific statement and people who know little about science should not be making such revolutionary scientific claims.
We have chromosomes in our cells. Chromosomes are single, long pieces of double stranded DNA which are wrapped around proteins for packaging purposes. Certain lengths of the DNA have the coding necessary to be transcribed, and are therefore transcribed into RNA molecules. Some of these RNA molecules are used directly, while many more get translated into proteins, which are the useful products for those particular sections of transcribed DNA. Those lengths of DNA which get transcribed are called genes.
There is much DNA between the genes that does not get transcribed - this may be what you are referring to as "filler". Also, there are parts of genes which get editted out later via post transcriptional modification of the RNA before the RNA gets translated into proteins. These are known as introns, and these may also be what you mean by "filler". If you want to exclude introns, that's perfectly reasonable; in fact I think it would be hard to defend a position which wanted to include them unless the body uses them for something. I don't think it does. So let's exclude introns.
So, the definition I think is most reasonable at this point is the number of base pairs contained within genes which gets transcribed (this excludes the 'filler' outside the genes but in the DNA), with all introns excluded.
Please note - I did not make the original claim, yet I am being asked to provide the definitions. You'd think those who made the claim would be willing to define their own terms! That's how scientific papers generally work...
I really hope no one attacks my challenge on the basis that I am using my own definition, since no one else is willing to offer one and I was asked to provide one by those defending the claim I am challenging! Such a criticism of my challenge would be really pathetic.
By the way, all the knowledge I mentioned here would be taught in any freshman level biology class. It's not advanced stuff.
What do you think, Coletti?
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf this is the direction we're going in, I'd like to mention ahead of time that a point mutation very easily transforms the material outside of genes into genes by introducing promoters.
[b]Is this your definition of information for this discussion?
I did not make the original claim; I challenged it, and while challenging it, asked for the definition used to support the claim. No one provided one, but I was asked what I would use if I had to choose the definition. So I provided one. If you don't like it, you're free to off ...[text shortened]... ny freshman level biology class. It's not advanced stuff.
What do you think, Coletti?
[/b]
19 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think I will ignore the parenthetic abuse ad hominem and stick with the useful technical information. I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism. I thought that was one of the functions of science - openness to constructive criticism.
[b]Is this your definition of information for this discussion?
I did not make the original claim; I challenged it, and while challenging it, asked for the definition used to support the claim. No one provided one, but I was a ...[text shortened]... s. It's not advanced stuff.
What do you think, Coletti?
[/b]
So we have:
Those lengths of DNA which get transcribed are called genes.
and
the definition (of information)... is the number of base pairs contained within genes which gets transcribed (this excludes the 'filler' outside the genes but in the DNA), with all introns excluded.
And you agree that it is reasonable to "think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose."
So for clarification - do all the base pairs which are transcribed (as described and excluding introns) have a known purpose or function. Are we counting only those who's purpose we know, or are we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiGenes also duplicate, and in the plant world entire genomes duplicate. This duplication is dead handy. Genic regions tend to be highly conserved; if a gene codes for and essential enzyme a point mutation could prove fatal, however where a copy exists one copy can mutat to a novel function leaving the functionality of the other copy intact. So the process goes something like this; gene is duplicated (transposed), one of the duplicates mutates and codes for a novel enzyme that in turn provides some new functionality for the organism making it fitter (or not) as the case may be.
I think I will ignore the parenthetic abuse ad hominem and stick with the useful technical information. I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism. I thought that was one of the functions of science - openness to constructive criticism.
So we have:
[b]Those lengths of DNA which get ...[text shortened]... ho's purpose we know, or are we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.
If intelligent design is true how come the only way a dog can clean its arsehole is to use its tongue?
19 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiDid I make an argument ad hominem? I try to avoid attacking people. I didn't mean to do so with my comment.
I think I will ignore the parenthetic abuse ad hominem and stick with the useful technical information. I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism. I thought that was o ...[text shortened]... we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.
Let me ask you a question: do you know enough about genetics in order to defend the claim that the information content of DNA cannot increase without intelligence? If so, why are you asking me to teach you about how genetics works? If not, what basis do you have for making or defending the claim about whether intelligence can increase without intelligent intervention? I don't think this is an argument ad hominem. I haven't studied logic though. Maybe we can ask bbarr to referee?
I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism.
I don't. I think your criticism was very apt. However, I was not the one who made the initial claim. Why am I defining the terms used in it?
So for clarification - do all the base pairs which are transcribed (as described and excluding introns) have a known purpose or function. Are we counting only those who's purpose we know, or are we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.
This is totally irrelevant to the argument. Information has been defined, and I have shown that information content of DNA can increase via a point mutation which is totally undirected by intelligence. Therefore the initial claim is wrong. Would you like to try a different definition of information?
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeThis is a classic example of why it's really hard for me to believe anyone with any knowledge of genetics could make the claim about the impossibility of information increasing without intelligent intervention (II). Genes get copied, and they get mutated. The combination of the two means new genes get created. How is this not creation of information?
Genes also duplicate, and in the plant world entire genomes duplicate. This duplication is dead handy. Genic regions tend to be highly conserved; if a gene codes for and essential enzyme a point mutation could prove fatal, however where a copy exists one copy can mutat to a novel function leaving the functionality of the other copy intact. So the proces ...[text shortened]... elligent design is true how come the only way a dog can clean its arsehole is to use its tongue?
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell the mutation should be functional for it to be information, otherwise it's random junk. That's the key to evolutionary theory - things evolve - not just mutate. A mutation could go in any direction. If an increase of information is an indication of evolution - it needs to move in a positive direction. It needs to be useful.
This is totally irrelevant to the argument. Information has been defined, and I have shown that information content of DNA can increase via a point mutation which is totally undirected by intelligence. Therefore the initial claim is wrong. Would you like to try a different definition of information?
My problem is I don't completely disagree with you. I'm just arguing to better understand the mechanism - by working out what the flaws are. Such as what keeps things evolving instead of devolving. And how can we tell when a mutation really is positive.
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAn argument ad hominem "is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself."
This is a classic example of why it's really hard for me to believe anyone with any knowledge of genetics could make the claim about the impossibility of information increasing without intelligent intervention (II). Genes get copied, and they get mutated. The combination of the two means new genes get created. How is this not creation of information?
Now, if I have done this, there must be some idea that was stated, and I must have attacked the character or motives of the person who stated the idea. Can you clarify who stated what idea to which I responded with the argument ad hominem fallacy?
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiOh. So you are not defending the initial claim? Would you clarify this?
Well the mutation should be functional for it to be information, otherwise it's random junk. That's the key to evolutionary theory - things evolve - not just mutate. A mutation could go in any direction. If an increase of information is an indication of evolution - it needs to move in a positive direction. It needs to be useful.
My problem is I don ...[text shortened]... s things evolving instead of devolving. And how can we tell when a mutation really is positive.
19 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiSo the mutation must be functional for it to be information. How do we define 'functional'? We need a definition for which someone can find hard data to support the original claim. Otherwise there is no basis for the original claim, and it's entirely meaningless.
Well the mutation should be functional for it to be information, otherwise it's random junk. That's the key to evolutionary theory - things evolve - not just mutate. A mutation could go in any direction. If an increase of information i ...[text shortened]... evolving. And how can we tell when a mutation really is positive.
Suppose a hypothetical organism evolved a gene which encoded a protein which destroyed other enzymes like the DNA polymerases the organism needs to replicate it's genome. Does this gene have a function? Is does code for an enzyme which does something.
19 Apr 05
2 edits
Sorry about spamming this thread. It's just that this is showing exactly why this claim is one of my pet peeves. I heard the claim for the first time and I thought to myself - how do I check this out? But I can't. There is no way to check it out because it's worded so vaguely that people who really want it to be true can claim any evidence I come up with doesn't count for some reason. It's too vague to be scientific. There's no way to investigate it because no one will define the key terms. Can you see my frustration, Coletti, and can you see why I have a hard time taking this claim seriously?
However what I do take seriously is the way this claim is affecting what the non scientists believe. To me it's a way of slick talking the ignorant into thinking ID must be true. This bothers me.
19 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI went back an checked the link you added (should have done that earlier) to see if I agreed with the "initial claim."
So the mutation must be functional for it to be information. How do we define 'functional'? We need a definition for which someone can find hard data to support the original claim. Otherwise there is no basis for the original cla ...[text shortened]... have a function? Is does code for an enzyme which does something.
I guess we need to define an increase in informations so that the processes shows a clear mechanism that would take a life form from a simple celled creature to a complex creature (say from an amoeba to a cat). That means that unless we can show that the increase in information (however we define it) moves forward from a simple to complex life form - it does not show evolution.
Although the details are complex, the concept is fairly simple. Lets not forget the goal of evolution. If the details of genetic mutations are not clearly positive - there is no evidence of evolution.