So, Jukia admits he doesn't understand the math, but he's sure that the authors and the NIH publisher got their summary wrong.
NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
AO, ever since the discovery that all the world shares the mDNA of a single woman whom evolutionists call Mitochondrial Eve, which contradicted the evolutionary assumption that we have evolved from thousands or more of such females, there has been this kind of testimony "contrary to interest" to acknowledge an extreme bottleneck in human evolution. (Now, just wait till they come to terms with the Y-chromosome bottleneck, and we'll really be having fun!)
-Bob Enyart
That's only true if you're interested in the specific order of the bits of data in a random sequence. If you randomize the information content of all Google search results, you'll lose all of Google's information, and their stock value will plummet. You don't dispute that, do you Frayed?
And I imagine you'd rather your bank not allow entropy to maximize the information in the amount fields for the payments you make by the checks that you write.
Yes Frayed! Have you been reading my Entropy and Evolution debate posts again?
-Bob Enyart
AO, many months ago I added your objection to that show's summary, at
http://kgov.com/bel/20091002
and linked to my apology for bailing out of the TOL thread too early, before you made your strong point. I've never gotten back to that topic. You're bringing this up from a year and a half ago as bad behavior? Why, because I haven't gotten back to the topic?
-Bob Enyart
Hardly, since that would mean the summary adds no value to the article.
Reading the summary as a novice in what it speaks to, I found it confusing, and it almost seemed to contradict my prior understandings. But this paper was not directed to the general public (including me), else it would have appeared in Scientific American or some such venue. I suspect someone who is technically conversant with the subject matter might find the summary accurate and enlightening. I certainly did not glean from the summary a simplistic notion that 100 mya was a norm for a mutation to become predominant in a population.
I have only read a few studies that commented on observed rates of mutations.
How about you, what research or study have you done on beneficial mutations?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Bob. You have totally misunderstood mitochondrial Eve, in the exact same way which I've already explained in this thread. It's a small wonder you could make heads or tails out of the posted paper with this level of misunderstanding.
Mitochondrial Eve is not the ONLY woman we trace our ancestry, the concept poses ZERO problems for evolution. She is simply the single DIRECT female ancestor.
And yes there is the idea of a Y-chromosomal Adam also. But those two individuals probably didn't live at the same time and probably not even in the same place.
Think of it this way. You can trace your ancestry back through your last name, Enyart. You can trace ONLY the Enyarts back, of course you're ignoring a huge number of ancestors because family trees branch out wider and wider as you go farther back. But you can keep going until you get to the "first Enyart".
That's exactly what Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam are. The simply ignore all of the other ancestors and focus only on the DIRECT male and female lines. The Y-chromosomal Adam mirrors the last name example since Y chromosomes, like last names are passed on only by males.
So even with mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam, we're still looking at thousands of ancestors for modern humans.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Ahh, I wouldn't have even thought to look there. I appreciate your correction on that topic.
I mentioned it because I thought it might rouse you to action on some of the other topics here.
Flipper
New member
As you're taking questions, did you ever change your mind regarding your objections to General Relativity?
It was a perfect analogy. You knew what I meant but purposely chose to be obtuse.
The only other option is magic. Why do you even study biology when you believe that?
This is so irrelevant the purpose of mentioning it can only be (since we know you are smart) to be dishonest.
It isn't the opposite at all. It's exactly the same. It's just more complicated. But what we find is that evolution can't even do the simple systems, much less the more complicated ones.
So that's the challenge for evolution, do show how it can create a simple system first, and then we'll see if it can create a more complicated one like programmed variation.
What you think I can't get through my head is something you made up that you've attributed to me.
If I type "fassel" you can decode it. But you don't know what it means. Same with messages in a cell (proteins are a small subset of the message systems in a cell). It doesn't matter if it can be decoded if the function doesn't mean anything to the organism.
Then it isn't a fassle. That would mean there is a receiver that can understand the message (proteins are a tiny subset of the message systems in a cell). If you don't believe it, then take cyt-c, throw in a few random changes, and see if you don't more likely get one of the 4.15 X 10^180 non-functional versions instead of one of the functional 5.15 X 10^ 47 versions. It's simple enough math that even I can get it through my head.
Who said anything about a "narrow range"? Only you. It would be one of those things you make up and attribute to me and then claim I can't get through my head.
You say this, and then say:
That's exactly what I said.
As long as evolution stays in the realm of magic, this is true.
Don't bring up new problems for evolution until you've explained the old ones.
Mutation to Become Predominant: DBJ, was that 100M for the mutation to become prominent, or just for it to arise? The becoming prominent part would be far quicker in the small population they considered. Propagating, now, there's a problem...
What have you Studied: DBJ, I read a book on such matters by Dr. Lee Spetner, the scientist who earned a place in history by first quantifying and publishing mutation rates for different organisms. He wrote Not by Chance. I recommend it. By the way, many evolutionists howl at the mere mention of the name of a scientist who has written against Darwinsim, so I'd suggest reading his book and not listening to the howls. Also, I've read similar arguments from:
- John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. in biochemistry, published 128 refeered papers (and has great observations on research on millions of generations of bacteria)
- A bit from George T. Javor and D. B. Gower,, PhDs in biochemistry respectively from Columbia University and University of London
- John P. Marcus, Ph.D. in biochemistry from the Univ. of Michigan, on DNA
-Bob Enyart
It's pretty simple. Information theory can be applied to any data set. Can either of you tell us why information theory cannot be applied to the data read from DNA in ATGC form? Is it because evolution has no data? :chuckle:
Alate_One
Well-known member
The letters of DNA are obviously information. I am simply saying that genetic material passed on from offspring to child does not occur in the same way that you send a message to someone else and expect the EXACT same message to be received.
Organisms purposefully include variation through meiosis. I know of no human technology that does this.
Think of it this way. Each one of your cells has two copies of each chromosome. Both are slightly different from one another because you got one from Mom and one from Dad. Now, you can only pass on one of those two chromosomes. You could just pick one but that's not what cells do, instead they scramble the two and pass on a mixed chromosome.
We can make an analogy of the genes on the chromosome by making them each a sentence. Each word would represent a different gene on the chromosome. In this case the first gene has two different versions (both are still colors).
Mom - Red makes great color flower
Dad - Blue constructs lovely pigment bloom
After meiosis you could end up with chromosomes like:
Red constructs lovely color flower
Blue makes lovely color bloom
Red makes lovely pigment flower
Every combination is possible, and you don't know which will end up being passed on. This happens for each of the 23 chromosome pairs in a human being (each pair of chromosomes in whatever it is you're working with). This is part of the reason why two people can have many children together and no two will ever be exactly alike (unless they are identical twins).
So, how can you make a prediction with your information theory when you don't even know what the exact "message" will be to the next generation?
Then the rules of information theory apply! Random changes to information are always detrimental to the information.
Which makes information theory inapplicable, how? ANSWER - it doesn't.
I do.
Thanks for the biology lesson. I was already well aware of this, but.
Your analogy is understandable and describes what you are talking about, but it is not useful for the discussion we are actually trying to advance.
We are talking about information. Information, when not just considered as a mathematical formula, conveys meaning. Thus your analogy's sentences should reflect this. Every sentence needs to convey useful and understandable ideas. If they do not, the child will be somewhat malformed.
This is exactly what you are trying to avoid talking about clearly with Y.
Because you know what to expect. You expect to find a functioning human being. You do not expect to find superfluous parts or defective parts. This is because we expect the code to work even if we do not know exactly how it works.
Information theory can be applied to other situations in exactly the same way. In WWII when the Allies received Axis codes, they were able to determine information because they were expecting to find more than just noise. They did not know how the information was encoded, but from the output they were able to determine that there was intelligence behind and to be gained from what they heard. The intentional variation between source and receiver was irrelevant. It did not matter that they did not know exactly what message would come next. And any random changes to the data they received would only ever be detrimental to the information (Shannon or otherwise).
Alate_One
Well-known member
If that is true for information theory (and I am not sure you have a basis for this either) Because I can give you plenty of examples where random changes have improved particular proteins (which result from DNA information).
How about you enlighten us for once instead of posting moronic smileys?
Sure you were . . .Thanks for the biology lesson. I was already well aware of this, but.
I'm specifically talking about Yorz's signal and receiver idea. Meiosis doesn't really match it.Your analogy is understandable and describes what you are talking about, but it is not useful for the discussion we are actually trying to advance.
That's function. That really says not very much about the *specific* information content that was transmitted. Did the human being have blonde hair or brown? Green eyes or hazel, was he a fast runner? Did he have a calm disposition or was he constantly overacting. Did he turn out to have autism?
To my understanding information theory is all about human information that is extremely specific. For example your WWII analogy, the allies would need exact place names, coordinates even to have the information be functional at all.
Biological information can be extremely sloppy and still get the job done. You can take seeds and fire neutrons at them to purposefully damage DNA. And most of the seeds will still grow. And if you look carefully you may find a useful characteristic in those seeds.
But that's the funny thing. We know that each person has at least 100 random changes to their DNA every generation. Even over 6000 - 10,000 years, why hasn't every species on earth started to have horrible, unrecoverable malformations?
A-O, that we can "quantify?" I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean this, then you are correct:
mEve is the single human female from whom geneticists claim that the entire human race has descended from.
-Bob Enyart
Please show us good reason for your doubt. :up:
Not without assuming the truth of evolutionary theory and ignoring the challenge to it from information theory.
I did.
Ever since fourth form.
Yeah, it does.
What?
Your analogy provided nonsense as if it were information. To make your analogy fit the discussion you need to use English sentences that convey information. We can tell nothing from the sentences you provided in your analogy other than you seem to be limiting yourself to English words about flowers and colours.
When meiosis occurs we have information that might be described like this:
A1. Build more nose.
A2. Build more nose x 2.
A3. Build more nose x 10.
A4. Repeat Previous.
B. Stop building nose.
The meiosis process might analogously work so that it gets four A's, two from Dad and two from Mum and the B is appended automatically. Thus the content of the message passed on is not critical only the form is critical. As long as it is one of the 44=256 combinations of AAAAB possible a nose will get built. We, as a receiver of this information, might not understand how the meiosis process selects each part of the message, but we can become certain of the intent in the message. And we can be absolutely certain that random changes to the content of the message will only ever be detrimental. AACAB is going to mess up both the functionality of the child and also our certainty of the intent behind the information.
DNA is extremely specific. Why would you imagine otherwise?
And information theory does not rely on specificity (Yes, "specificity"). It can be applied to any data set.
The Allies benefited simply from knowing that a message was sent in some cases. It does not matter what the content is. Information theory applies to any data set and you can be very certain that if the data set is informed then random changes to it will only ever degrade the information received.
"Sloppy"? No, it can't. It must send a form that will be understood. An Axis message could be sent using contents of great variety with the same message being efficiently conveyed. My 'nose' example could be sent using content in 256 different ways. That there are multiple ways to send the same message is evidence of a strong information system. But if either system becomes sloppy then errors are introduced. And errors will only ever degrade a message.
And if you send all the Axis messages over a noisy transmission medium they will all be degraded. But if you look closely you might find some messages to be extremely useful. Information never arises from random changes. That it shines through despite noise is evidence that the system is well designed.
lain:You did not just say this.
Frayed, I'm sure you realize that they dropped Ann Gibbon's 6,000-year figure and adopted the 200,000-year figure by including chimp DNA in their calculations. (See the cites.) Yes?
-Bob Enyart
That's a great example. You can mix up some of your message, but not all of it. It's the same with the next generation, since only parts are varied, and not all, it shows the variation is programmed.
You should ask a programmer at the college about the advantages of programmed variation. Random in programs is a huge problem that continues to be worked on to this day. Biomimetics, BTW, is a promising path for computer scientists in solving this problem.
Wow, that's the most forthright statement in such a thread as this from an evolutionist I can recall reading.
Yes Frayed, and if I can quote you above, but substitute genetics for your communications system:
If I have a batch of information [in my genes] that I want to [reproduce], and the [biological] system that I'm using to [reproduce] substitutes some of its own randomness ([mutations]), then the amount of my [genetic] information that you are getting [you mutant] is less than what I started with. In [reproduction], that's what's important. -BE transliterating Frayed
Yezzz...
See your quote(s) above
Oops. Frayed, forget about us creationists, now you've gone and upset "Evolution-is-not-about-an-increase-in-information" Johnny.
-Bob Enyart
p.s. In 2006 Johnny posted on TOL that "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information,'" and he was then pressed to retract that statement," and instead he dug in, "Quote me if you like. I stand 100% by my statement.” So in our Entropy debate I asked Johnny if he agreed that we should all guard against the heavy evolutionary bias that downplays information's role in biology? To which Johnny answered, ''There is no downplaying of the role of information in biology or evolution." Go figure.
- Status