NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site

[Stripe]

Science changes to match the evidence. The central idea of Evolution hasn't changed, however.

Actually it should be ideas that change to match evidence. Science should continue to be practiced properly. Or, in the case of the evolutionist, start to be practiced. :chuckle:

Migration is moving around of genes from elsewhere. Genetic drift is the LOSS of alleles by random factors due to the death of the holders. Genetic Drift is more common in small populations.

Genes move in, genes move out. You've given two names to what is essentially the same idea.

No. Your explanation isn't reasonable.

I guarantee you are completely unable to accurately convey that idea.

I watched the video you posted, the person you have chosen to believe doesn't know what he is talking about.

What video? :idunno:

 

[Yorzhik]

DNA doesn't send messages itself. DNA is the storehouse of information to make proteins as well as a series of signposts as to when and where to use said information. Messages are sent using RNA polymerase, mRNA as well as other proteins and other non-translated RNAs.

Stop being stupid. When someone hands you a phone handset and says, "it's your dad." you don't get angry at them and yell, "MY DAD ISN'T A PHONE HANDSET!" DNA holds all the messages we are interested in this context, but, as usual, you'll do anything to avoid an honest conversation.

DNA (even in a gamete) is the message transmitted. It is what get's distorted by noise in transmission. It is what is received by the decoder. It's the message that evolution works with.

But none of this has anything directly to do with evolution. Evolution involves the passing on of DNA through reproduction to offspring and the observation that the DNA content of a population of organisms changes over time.

Right on. It has everything to do with evolution, albeit indirectly. When a message is distorted by random mutation, we don't know which one it will be. Regardless, the receiver must be able to decode it when the time comes. The problem is that the receiver can only decode a certain range of messages; if a grand new function from evolution is outside of that range... the function never happens.

It's simple, really. When evolution creates some grand new function, it must change the receiving functions in a compatible way.

And beyond that, the 2nd law says evolution can't happen so nya nya nya.

 

[Alate_One]

Stop being stupid.

I think you need to take your own advice here. Your analogy has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

DNA (even in a gamete) is the message transmitted. It is what get's distorted by noise in transmission. It is what is received by the decoder. It's the message that evolution works with.

I think we are agreed that DNA is the message, but what the receiver is, is more complex. I don't think signal and receiver really lends itself to biology. In reproduction, cells purposefully scramble bits of the "message", DNA, during meiosis. Sexual reproduction isn't ABOUT passing on an identical copy of the "message". It's about making new combinations and generating variation. Kinda the opposite of a human system of a signal and receiver.

Right on. It has everything to do with evolution, albeit indirectly. When a message is distorted by random mutation, we don't know which one it will be. Regardless, the receiver must be able to decode it when the time comes. The problem is that the receiver can only decode a certain range of messages; if a grand new function from evolution is outside of that range... the function never happens.

You really don't know what you're talking about here. It's not possible to make a piece of DNA with a "grand new function" (at least one that is a protein) that can't be decoded. If it's a functional protein, it's going to work. There is no "narrow range" of messages that can be decoded. DNA code is not like human encoded messages. I've been over this before and you can't seem to get it through your head.

It's simple, really. When evolution creates some grand new function, it must change the receiving functions in a compatible way.

Your understanding of biology is wrong if you think this is the case.

Either the protein can be translated completely or it cannot be and will simply stop early. And just because it is understood by the "receiving functions" by which I presume you mean the translation machinery, does NOT in any way mean it will be functional for the organism. Nor is any organism going to make "compatible changes" in the translation machinery. Those kinds of changes would be almost certain to break every protein in the organism.

And beyond that, the 2nd law says evolution can't happen so nya nya nya.

Oh come on, this creo-meme is so worn and tired. The second law poses exactly zero problems for evolution.

And besides all of that it seems that at least in some cases, "grand new functions" don't require new pieces of DNA, but deleting the old.

Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific traits.

Throws a lil' monkey wrench in your old saws eh? :chuckle:

 

[Alate_One]

Actually it should be ideas that change to match evidence. Science should continue to be practiced properly. Or, in the case of the evolutionist, start to be practiced.

The details of the idea have changed to match the evidence. The main idea has not been disproved. (that's why it's a theory!)

Genes move in, genes move out. You've given two names to what is essentially the same idea.

This is because you want to oversimplify everything.

I guarantee you are completely unable to accurately convey that idea.

It is already contradicted by mountains of evidence. Evidence you simply ignore because you're already too well invested in the idea to be dissuaded by simple facts!

What video? :idunno:

You posted a video (youtube series iirc) of the guy that gave you your "DNA changes itself" idea. iirc he was an engineer and a fairly biologically clueless one at that.

 

[Stripe]

I don't think signal and receiver really lends itself to biology.

Beginning to comprehend the challenge evolution faces, eh?

In reproduction, cells purposefully scramble bits of the "message", DNA, during meiosis. Sexual reproduction isn't ABOUT passing on an identical copy of the "message". It's about making new combinations and generating variation. Kinda the opposite of a human system of a signal and receiver.

No, not really. Human devised system can do this easily and great efforts are made to be able to scramble and unscramble signals.

You should really just work with Y. on this one instead of trying to confuse the issue. :up:

The details of the idea have changed to match the evidence. The main idea has not been disproved. (that's why it's a theory!)

That's better. It's refreshing to hear you stop referring to evolution as "science".

Evolution is just a theory.

This is because you want to oversimplify everything.

What is wrong with my assessment?

It is already contradicted by mountains of evidence. Evidence you simply ignore because you're already too well invested in the idea to be dissuaded by simple facts!

And I guarantee you are still unable to accurately restate the idea.

You posted a video (youtube series iirc) of the guy that gave you your "DNA changes itself" idea. iirc he was an engineer and a fairly biologically clueless one at that.

Can't remember it. :idunno:

 

[Alate_One]

Beginning to comprehend the challenge evolution faces, eh?

There's no challenge here. You're trying to apply something that doesn't apply. And utterly failing to comprehend that.

No, not really. Human devised system can do this easily and great efforts are made to be able to scramble and unscramble signals.

You should really just work with Y. on this one instead of trying to confuse the issue.

No, I'm not trying to confuse the issue, you always think this because you don't actually understand the biology. You can keep your smug attitude going but it doesn't change the fact that you are virtually totally ignorant of simple biological processes.

DNA isn't being mixed so it can be later unscrambled. It's mixed to create variation, new combinations that stay that way in the offspring, no "unscrambling" occurs or is necessary.

That's better. It's refreshing to hear you stop referring to evolution as "science".

Stop putting words in my mouth and I'll refrain from doing so to you.

Evolution is just a theory.

And you are just a clueless English teacher pretending that you know anything at all about science.

What is wrong with my assessment?

You're lumping everything together into an indistinct blob. To you, anything that changes allele frequency is the same thing regardless of the process that caused it.

And I guarantee you are still unable to accurately restate the idea.

I know you can't restate any scientific theory or process discussed here, so why should I bother with your silly ideas?

 

[Stripe]

There's no challenge here.

Yeah, there is.

You can quit insisting there isn't or you can quit trying to answer the challenge. One of those actions will make your words rational.

You're trying to apply something that doesn't apply.

It's a sign of your desperation to insist that information theory does not apply to biology. It's akin to insisting physics doesn't apply to volcanology.

No, I'm not trying to confuse the issue

Yeah, you are.

you always think this because you don't actually understand the biology.

I'm not overly well versed in biology. But I am smart enough to know what rules it must adhere to. Information theory is one.

DNA isn't being mixed so it can be later unscrambled. It's mixed to create variation, new combinations that stay that way in the offspring, no "unscrambling" occurs or is necessary.

Which only makes the issue simpler than the example I provided.

Stop putting words in my mouth and I'll refrain from doing so to you.

Or you could just stop all by yourself.

And you are just a clueless English teacher pretending that you know anything at all about science.

:blabla:

You're lumping everything together into an indistinct blob. To you, anything that changes allele frequency is the same thing regardless of the process that caused it.

Can you show us anything I've said that is wrong?

I know you can't restate any scientific theory or process discussed here, so why should I bother with your silly ideas?

Liar. I can restate ideas simply and quickly and have done so many times. You need not restate my ideas, but if you wish to dismiss them you have to first be willing to understand them. You are not so willing.

 

[Jukia]

Evolution is just a theory.
:

Wow, did you finally learn something? You are correct. It is "just a theory". Ala the germ theory, quantum theory, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of gravity.

 

[Jukia]

I think we are agreed that DNA is the message, but what the receiver is, is more complex. I don't think signal and receiver really lends itself to biology. In reproduction, cells purposefully scramble bits of the "message", DNA, during meiosis. Sexual reproduction isn't ABOUT passing on an identical copy of the "message". It's about making new combinations and generating variation. Kinda the opposite of a human system of a signal and receiver.

If there were an honestly chosen "post of the month" this would be it. Nice work.

 

[Stripe]

You are correct.

I know. I usually am.

If there were an honestly chosen "post of the month" this would be it. Nice work.

:rotfl:

So you too think information theory cannot be applied to data derived from DNA?

 

[Jukia]

I know. I usually am.



:rotfl:

So you too think information theory cannot be applied to data derived from DNA?

I have no idea if information theory can be applied to DNA data. Unlike you, Pastor Bob etc. I recognize when I am beyond my technical expertise.

 

[Stripe]

I have no idea if information theory can be applied to DNA data.

Oh. Well, it's pretty simple.

Information theory can be applied to any data set. All you need is a string of variables that can take a known range of values. Once you have the size of the data set you can calculate ways to forward the same message on using as few bits as possible.

So say you get a whole bunch of phone numbers that you want to transmit by morse code. Instead of assigning all the digits 0-9 an individual code you can analyse the data and assign codes according to certain characteristics. For instance, phone numbers have area codes of certain lengths. Let's say all the area codes are two digits, zero-something. Instead of calling 09 by it's zero-nine Morse equivalent (----- ----) you could call it ---- because the receiver can be told that every first digit is zero.

Or say the area codes are only 06-09 then you could send 09 as -- because you only need two beeps to distinguish between the four possible values (06= .. 07 = .- 08 = -. 09 = --).

Thus if your receiver is informed that the first two digits of each phone number are an area code from 06,07,08,09, and how those four values are represented then you can send two beeps instead of nine.

There are several other techniques that can be applied to further reduce the input required. The greater the reduction in input the less the entropy of the data set. The uncertainty that the receiver starts with minus the uncertainty the receiver has afterward is the information transmitted.

I realise you're not very informed ( :chuckle: ) on this subject, but I'm willing to bet you can quickly understand these ideas and understand how very useful they are.

Now, can you tell us why information theory cannot be applied to the data read from DNA in ATGC form?

 

[Jukia]

Oh. Well, it's pretty simple.

Information theory can be applied to any data set. All you need is a string of variables that can take a known range of values. Once you have the size of the data set you can calculate ways to forward the same message on using as few bits as possible.

So say you get a whole bunch of phone numbers that you want to transmit by morse code. Instead of assigning all the digits 0-9 an individual code you can analyse the data and assign codes according to certain characteristics. For instance, phone numbers have area codes of certain lengths. Let's say all the area codes are two digits, zero-something. Instead of calling 09 by it's zero-nine Morse equivalent (----- ----) you could call it ---- because the receiver can be told that every first digit is zero.

Or say the area codes are only 06-09 then you could send 09 as -- because you only need two beeps to distinguish between the four possible values (06= .. 07 = .- 08 = -. 09 = --).

Thus if your receiver is informed that the first two digits of each phone number are an area code from 06,07,08,09, and how those four values are represented then you can send two beeps instead of nine.

There are several other techniques that can be applied to further reduce the input required. The greater the reduction in input the less the entropy of the data set. The uncertainty that the receiver starts with minus the uncertainty the receiver has afterward is the information transmitted.

I realise you're not very informed ( :chuckle: ) on this subject, but I'm willing to bet you can quickly understand these ideas and understand how very useful they are.

Now, can you tell us why information theory cannot be applied to the data read from DNA in ATGC form?

And I am supposed to take the statements of a creo fundy, a follower of Walt Brown, and a believer of 6 day creation as accurate and true? No thanks. Not even going to bother to read it.

 

[Stripe]

And I am supposed to take the statements of a creo fundy, a follower of Walt Brown, and a believer of 6 day creation as accurate and true? No thanks. Not even going to bother to read it.

Didn't think you'd be interested.

 

[Jukia]

Didn't think you'd be interested.

Oh, I am, but I would rather spend my time reading something that might be accurate and truthful.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, I am, but I would rather spend my time reading something that might be accurate and truthful.

Feel free to click on any of the links that say the same thing. They are written by atheists. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Here and here 'tis.

 

[Stripe]

Now, when you finish all your research Jukia, do come back and tell us why information theory cannot be applied to the data read from DNA in ATGC form. :thumb:

 

[Bob Enyart]

Has Enyart or anyone else actually READ the original paper and not just the abstract? The paper is attacking Michale Behe's arguments, not supporting them . . . :kookoo:

AO, yes, that was the WHOLE POINT, AO, that this testimony is given "contrary to interests" in an anti-ID paper attacking Behe. And yes, you should really read that great ID article by Douglas Axe that I linked to in the OP.

-Bob Enyart

p.s. The last time I was asked whether I read the original paper, the author of that paper, Dan Styer, on Evolution and Entropy, ended up commenting on our TOL debate and saying:

Everything scientists discover -- what we discover about biogeography and evolution, about crystals and clouds, about atoms and galaxies, about black holes and quantum mechanics -- demonstrates the glory of God. If I had been creator of the universe, it would have been a much more prosaic, much more humble, and much less interesting place. Our scientific discoveries of course are now and will remain forever incomplete, but what we do know shows us a universe more arresting, more magnificent, more sublime than anything a human could have created.

 

[Bob Enyart]

You must admit, in the abstract for the article (and abstracts are intentionally simplified summaries) it says: “…for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.” ...consider[] the daunting level of math the article relies on for those scientists who dare to really attempt a technical understanding.

So DavisBJ, do you think that only those who re-do all the math in the paper can benefit from the authors' summary? Or do you think that the summary is wrong and it should be re-written? DBJ, how hard have you looked at the time it would take for random mutations to create a new protein that reproductive advantage could then have a chance at selecting?