neo darwinain theory and the fabled information adding mutations

[sammy7]

ok.

 

me thinks it is a weasel

 

me thinks it is a qweasd

 

po asdfgh jk az b oiuytr

 

 

 

all three contain the same amount of level 1 info or "statistical" information.

 

 

me thinks it is a weasel .

 

this contains level 2 information or "functional information". this is the only information that matters. a sender with knowledge of the code understands the recipient must also have knowledge of the code so they share the same "medium" if you will. life only cares about this "functional information" or lvl2 info. i cannot convey a message to someone using only lvl1 information. yes lvl1 information is necessary BUT it must be arranged in a fashion such that it yields lvl2 info.

 

enter genetic mutations.

 

myth-genetic mutations acting along eons of time+natural selection yields NEW genes which code for NEW proteins which serve a NEW purpose.(forget the abiogenesis problem)

 

hi what are you doing today

 

hi what are jkf dsafg erwqt

 

sentence1=functional info or just "FI" if you will.

 

sentence 2=statistical information remains the same but "noise" has been added and "information" has been lost/destroyed. no loss of lvl1 info-it remains the same.lvl2 info has been destroyed.

 

(geneticists comment please ) so even if a mutation swaps round some nucleotides and lvl1 info remains the same lvl2 info gets destroyed. (correct sequencing for coding has been lost) so how in our universe can a "mutation" even one that leaves the same amount of nucleotides but adds "noise" ever add information? any mutation DECREASES information.

 

we would need-new nucleotides coming into being that yield "information" if it is a naturalistic process in our universe it is impossible. if we allow the supernatural 2 miracles would do it. new physical base pairs/nucleotides+in the correct information yielding sequence. 2 miracles. comment please thanks for reading.

[Moontanman]

ok.

 

me thinks it is a weasel

 

me thinks it is a qweasd

 

po asdfgh jk az b oiuytr

 

 

 

all three contain the same amount of level 1 info or "statistical" information.

 

 

me thinks it is a weasel .

 

this contains level 2 information or "functional information". this is the only information that matters. a sender with knowledge of the code understands the recipient must also have knowledge of the code so they share the same "medium" if you will. life only cares about this "functional information" or lvl2 info. i cannot convey a message to someone using only lvl1 information. yes lvl1 information is necessary BUT it must be arranged in a fashion such that it yields lvl2 info.

 

enter genetic mutations.

 

myth-genetic mutations acting along eons of time+natural selection yields NEW genes which code for NEW proteins which serve a NEW purpose.(forget the abiogenesis problem)

 

hi what are you doing today

 

hi what are jkf dsafg erwqt

 

sentence1=functional info or just "FI" if you will.

 

sentence 2=statistical information remains the same but "noise" has been added and "information" has been lost/destroyed. no loss of lvl1 info-it remains the same.lvl2 info has been destroyed.

 

(geneticists comment please ) so even if a mutation swaps round some nucleotides and lvl1 info remains the same lvl2 info gets destroyed. (correct sequencing for coding has been lost) so how in our universe can a "mutation" even one that leaves the same amount of nucleotides but adds "noise" ever add information? any mutation DECREASES information.

 

we would need-new nucleotides coming into being that yield "information" if it is a naturalistic process in our universe it is impossible. if we allow the supernatural 2 miracles would do it. new physical base pairs/nucleotides+in the correct information yielding sequence. 2 miracles. comment please thanks for reading.

 

 

sammy7, the idea that DNA is information is flawed, it is not information in the sense you mean. We as humans, give it that definition, we assign meaning to the molecules by giving them names, we call it information but only after the fact. The reality is that DNA is not information it is a chemical molecule that regulates the chemical reactions of other molecules. The idea that it is somehow by default information independent of humans is a strawman. Larger more complex molecules can and do form spontaneously from simpler molecules, to deny that is to deny reality...

[ydoaPs]

ok.

 

me thinks it is a weasel

 

me thinks it is a qweasd

 

po asdfgh jk az b oiuytr

 

 

 

all three contain the same amount of level 1 info or "statistical" information.

 

 

me thinks it is a weasel .

 

this contains level 2 information or "functional information". this is the only information that matters. a sender with knowledge of the code understands the recipient must also have knowledge of the code so they share the same "medium" if you will. life only cares about this "functional information" or lvl2 info. i cannot convey a message to someone using only lvl1 information. yes lvl1 information is necessary BUT it must be arranged in a fashion such that it yields lvl2 info.

 

enter genetic mutations.

 

myth-genetic mutations acting along eons of time+natural selection yields NEW genes which code for NEW proteins which serve a NEW purpose.(forget the abiogenesis problem)

 

hi what are you doing today

 

hi what are jkf dsafg erwqt

 

sentence1=functional info or just "FI" if you will.

 

sentence 2=statistical information remains the same but "noise" has been added and "information" has been lost/destroyed. no loss of lvl1 info-it remains the same.lvl2 info has been destroyed.

 

(geneticists comment please ) so even if a mutation swaps round some nucleotides and lvl1 info remains the same lvl2 info gets destroyed. (correct sequencing for coding has been lost) so how in our universe can a "mutation" even one that leaves the same amount of nucleotides but adds "noise" ever add information? any mutation DECREASES information.

 

we would need-new nucleotides coming into being that yield "information" if it is a naturalistic process in our universe it is impossible. if we allow the supernatural 2 miracles would do it. new physical base pairs/nucleotides+in the correct information yielding sequence. 2 miracles. comment please thanks for reading.

 

Nucleobases aren't a language; they're not coding words given meaning by humans. They are chemicals which make acids which make proteins. All information with nucleobases is functional information. In fact, the vast majority of scrambling mutations don't have any effect at all on the organism since the combinations of nucleobases (in groups of 3 pair called codons) don't map 1 to 1 onto the set of amino acids. When we have genes duplicated (such as in the case of Downs Syndrome when a whole chromosome is duplicated), both statistical and functional information is added.

 

Then comes in natural selection which weeds out the harmful mutations.

 

we would need-new nucleotides coming into being that yield "information" if it is a naturalistic process in our universe it is impossible. if we allow the supernatural 2 miracles would do it. new physical base pairs/nucleotides+in the correct information yielding sequence. 2 miracles. comment please thanks for reading.

 

Do humans and bacteria have the same amount of information in their genes? They both only have 4 nucleotides, right?

 

 

edit: added link to DNA codon/amino acid table

Edited May 27, 2012 by ydoaPs

[sammy7]

When we have genes duplicated (such as in the case of Downs Syndrome when a whole chromosome is duplicated), both statistical and functional information is added.

 

Then comes in natural selection which weeds out the harmful mutations.

 

hay i get what your saying about the aa's/codons then, could you please just explain trisomy right here for me please and how "functional" information is added? also natural selection is meaningless unless something new arises to act on....natural selection explains the survival of the fittest not the arrival of the fittest lol (kinda gay i know)

 

 

 

Do humans and bacteria have the same amount of information in their genes? They both only have 4 nucleotides, right?

 

 

hay i dont know the answer to this? some bacteria have huge genomes right? flaviobacterium or something? so there is no correlation between genome size and organism complexity...i still stand on my original post...

[ydoaPs]

hay i get what your saying about the aa's/codons then, could you please just explain trisomy right here for me please and how "functional" information is added?

 

Codons don't make words. They don't code for meaning given to things. They simply play a chemical role that determines what acids are to be made. Unlike your examples with words, all possible codons make the genetic equivalent of meaningful words. That is, they all make acids. This means all codons are functional information. Adding more codons means more information. It means more functional information.

 

 

also natural selection is meaningless unless something new arises to act on....natural selection explains the survival of the fittest not the arrival of the fittest lol

 

Your point? Yes, a mutation must occur before it is selected for. This is nothing new. What selection does, is weed out the harmful mutations.

 

hay i dont know the answer to this? some bacteria have huge genomes right? flaviobacterium or something? so there is no correlation between genome size and organism complexity...i still stand on my original post...

 

Please make up your mind. Either the size of the genome affects the amount of information, or it doesn't. If it does, your argument fails because evolution OBVIOUSLY can add information. If it doesn't, your argument fails because all genomes regardless of whether they are two codons or a hundred trillion have the exact same information content so long as they all use all four bases.

 

ok.

 

me thinks it is a weasel

 

me thinks it is a qweasd

 

po asdfgh jk az b oiuytr

 

 

Try this with codons to see your error. Create any sequence of codons, then do what you did here using nucleotides.

[sammy7]

sorry just to clarify qiojewriohweohrwejhjwejrwekjewrjkewrkewrkjhewrjhwerhwejrejkwekwrejjkewrhkjrwekrwejkjh hi what are you doing

 

 

the first sequence contains more "statistical" information than the second one. the second one has (obv) more "functional information"...this is all that matters.........if you wanna give me a real life example of a huge increase in codons (which would have to be a increase in nucleic acids) ok sure im listening.... thanks for reading my original post is vv accurate imo thanks

Edited May 27, 2012 by sammy7

[Moontanman]

sorry just to clarify qiojewriohweohrwejhjwejrwekjewrjkewrkewrkjhewrjhwerhwejrejkwekwrejjkewrhkjrwekrwejkjh hi what are you doing

 

 

the first sequence contains more "statistical" information than the second one. the second one has (obv) more "functional information"...this is all that matters.........if you wanna give me a real life example of a huge increase in codons (which would have to be a increase in nucleic acids) ok sure im listening.... thanks for reading my original post is vv accurate imo thanks

 

 

I can give a real life example of a decrease in information Sammy7, there can be no doubt that complexity can increase chemically with no outside influence. For you to say that no information can be added to genomes in the way you are asserting you would have to refute the idea that more complex molecules can arise out of simpler molecules spontaneously.

[ydoaPs]

sorry just to clarify qiojewriohweohrwejhjwejrwekjewrjkewrkewrkjhewrjhwerhwejrejkwekwrejjkewrhkjrwekrwejkjh hi what are you doing

 

 

the first sequence contains more "statistical" information than the second one. the second one has (obv) more "functional information"...this is all that matters.........if you wanna give me a real life example of a huge increase in codons (which would have to be a increase in nucleic acids) ok sure im listening.... thanks for reading my original post is vv accurate imo thanks

 

So, do you just not read posts at all?

 

There are no chemically valid codons that are gibberish. They all make acids. All codons are functional information. And I've already given an example of entire chromosomes being duplicated.

 

Take a sequence of codons and try to make it contain the same amount of statistical information, but less functional information. Hint: you can't.

Edited May 27, 2012 by ydoaPs

[sammy7]

neofunctionalization. the delusion i mean hypothesis that multiple copies of existing genes by mutation, *somehow* (laws of the universe aside obviously as always with these stories ) gain a new "function" while one copy retains the ancestral function. so and please comment on this, if say 1000bp gene coding for collagen gets copied twice instead of once the delusion i mean hypothesis is that the ancestral gene still codes for collagen while the extra copy now codes for something "new". ok where did this new sequence of bp come from considering it was a copy? prediction-if i search google scholar which i will waste time doing for the next few hours on this retarded thought experiment i will find that when these mutations do happen and multiple copies of existing genes are made they will almost always be deleterious......ill elaborate more on this nonsense, how is new sequencing of bp,s achieved considering its just a copy? and please do elaborate on how DOWN SYNDROME is an addition of new "functional" information....

 

 

btw information is "meta" if you will. has no mass. cant weigh it. its not matter and its not energy. it is information. like me talking across the room to someone. it is not matter and its not energy yet has a real cause and effect in our world. enter dna. idiot says-"dna is just a molecule it contains no information its just matter" someone with brain reads on dna for 1/2 an hour and says "hay i get it now" ie- the sequence of base pairs is such that it CORRECTLY codes for a FUNCTIONAL protein. mess around with that order and you get a protein that is junk. is this right? 200aa protein-all bp in right sequence up until the last few bp's say, 199aa's in correct sequence, last bp's being wrong code for a different aa than what the protein inherently needs to "work" and you have a "dud" protein because the last 1 out of 199 was "wrong". DNA CONTAINS "INFORMATION" FUNCTIONAL INFORMATION lol. IF SOMEONE MISSES THIS I CANT HELP THEM. GOD HELP US ALL ARRGGGGGHHHHH!!!! looooool THANKS FOR READING

Edited May 28, 2012 by sammy7

[ydoaPs]

ok sure, this appears to be delusional. please give me an example then thanks? (not a thought experiment)

 

It's delusional to ask you do use an example that doesn't rely on a category error to make your point?

[Ringer]

Sammy, please, for all of us, read up on how genes work. Read about codons, amino acids, proteins and how they fold, and how those proteins interact. You are arguing something you don't understand and that is the reason nothing in our arguments seems to be refuting what you are saying. All of the answers here have refuted all your points, but since you don't understand why they do you don't think they do. It is extremely easy for new sequences to be added or changed in a genome, as I have given examples of before and another is cross-over events, and people have explained how.

 

 

TL;DR: Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

[sammy7]

name='Ringer' timestamp='1338171455' post='680520']

Sammy, please, for all of us, read up on how genes work. Read about codons, amino acids, proteins and how they fold, and how those proteins interact. You are arguing something you don't understand and that is the reason nothing in our arguments seems to be refuting what you are saying. All of the answers here have refuted all your points, but since you don't understand why they do you don't think they do. It is extremely easy for new sequences to be added or changed in a genome, as I have given examples of before and another is cross-over events, and people have explained how.

 

bp,s code codons which code aa's. letters code a sentence which organized correctly yields INFORMATION. bp's sequenced "correctly" code codons which code for a FUNCTIONAL protein WHICH=INFORMATION I CANT HELP ANY MORE IM SORRY PLEASE LOCK UP THIS THREAD GAME OVER LIFE.

[Ringer]

bp,s code codons which code aa's. letters code a sentence which organized correctly yields INFORMATION. bp's sequenced "correctly" code codons which code for a FUNCTIONAL protein WHICH=INFORMATION I CANT HELP ANY MORE IM SORRY PLEASE LOCK UP THIS THREAD GAME OVER LIFE.

 

Codons can be, and are, changed all the time. This alters functionality, but it's still functional unlike your sentences. This means your analogy is wrong. What in this do you not understand?

 

 

 

 

Side rant: IIRC you came here in your first thread wanting to have reasonable discussions; why do you insist on avoiding them? You jump around making new threads anytime you can't answer a question on the same subjects. All of us are trying to be patient and help you understand why evolution is real, but you seem intent on running away from that.

[sammy7]

why evolution is real

 

ok. lenskis ecoli-horizontal gene transfer, those hox genes-over/under expressing genes for body parts (no "new" genes coming into being),

 

 

nylonase http://aem.asm.org/content/61/5/2020.full.pdf

 

"Though a molecular basis for the emergence of nylon oligomer metabolism in PAO5502 is still unknown"

 

human chromosome 2-assigning unobserved cause in past to account for telemores today.

 

 

please what other "rock solid" evidence is there for this rofl process? my original post is-addition of NEW GENES which code for NEW proteins which serve a NEW purpose is factual in that it i was stating it is IMPOSSIBLE. please do cite some literature showing how copies of genes assume a new purpose...please....i will wait....no "thought" experiments please and also please do actually read the literature yourself before citing THANKS A LOT

[immortal]

please what other "rock solid" evidence is there for this rofl process? my original post is-addition of NEW GENES which code for NEW proteins which serve a NEW purpose is factual in that it i was stating it is IMPOSSIBLE. please do cite some literature showing how copies of genes assume a new purpose...please....i will wait....no "thought" experiments please and also please do actually read the literature yourself before citing THANKS A LOT

 

Explaining gene duplication - this paper clearly shows why the bold part of your statement is false, it is very much possible.

 

http://euplotes.biology.uiowa.edu/web/ibs593/week8/zhang.pdf - Here is the actual literature. Once lucaspa, one of the biological experts said that this is one of the important paper for evolution by natural selection.

[sammy7]

hay thanks will read them and comment, also i thought you said you were a believer? what you doing putting faith in this evolution bs?

[immortal]

hay thanks will read them and comment, also i thought you said you were a believer? what you doing putting faith in this evolution bs?

 

 

Yes, I said I'm a theist and for me god has nothing to do with evolution nor the big bang, in fact the idea of a god has nothing to do with the natural world. Darwin's ideas were one of the powerful ideas in the history of mankind and there is undeniable evidence for evolution, there is no excuse for not believing in evolution. Whether god exists or does not exist, evolution by natural selection remains as a fact.

 

And also those intelligent design proponents are wrong if they are thinking that it is god which is designing the bio-machinery of life, I am convinced that god doesn't use DNA to design life, however that doesn't mean intelligent design is wrong if they are talking about something else other than god like aliens or any other things. What ever it is if intelligent design have to be called as science and to be taught in schools they should first come up with predictions which can be falsified so that we can know whether there are designers or not and that's a huge challenge, I am open to other possibilities if they indeed make it as proper science but I seriously doubt that they can come up with a falsifiable scientific theory, hence I can safely put ID into the unfalsifiable world of metaphysics.

[sammy7]

please start a new thread were i can demolish your delusion that the god of the bible used evolution (contains amusement) to get us here thanks (not personal) thanks

 

ok please answer did you read the literature? and if yes please say what you feel it "shows" screw it its not even necessary:

 

 

Fossil records show the emergence of leaf-eating and foregut fermentation in colobines no later than 10 Myr ago,

 

 

We also note the temporal proximity of the gene duplication and the radiation of Asian colobines about 3.5 Myr ago,

 

we estimated that the duplication of RNASE1 to RNASE1B occurred 4.2 Myr ago, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of 2.4–6.4 Myr ago.

 

 

The duplication occurred about 4 million years ago, after colobines split off from the other Old World monkeys, (from the overview)

 

ok at the risk of repeating myself ah screw it you figure it out lol

[immortal]

please start a new thread were i can demolish your delusion that the god of the bible used evolution (contains amusement) to get us here thanks (not personal) thanks

 

 

I never said that the god of the bible used evolution to get us here, in fact that is exactly what I don't blieve. I said "I am convinced that god doesn't use DNA to design life" which implies that he didn't used evolution.

 

 

ok please answer did you read the literature? and if yes please say what you feel it "shows" screw it its not even necessary:

 

 

 

It shows how natural selection can add new information by developing an adaptive gene which codes for a functional protein which is contrary to your statements in this whole thread.

 

Zhang and colleagues were particularly interested in a pancreatic enzyme, RNASE1, which breaks down bacterial RNA. Most primates have one gene encoding the enzyme, but the researchers found that the douc langur, a colobine monkey from Asia, has two - one encodes RNASE1, and its duplicate encodes a new enzyme, which they dubbed RNASE1B. The duplication occurred about 4 million years ago, after colobines split off from the other Old World monkeys, Zhang's analysis showed. Through a series of computations and experiments, the researchers determined that the original gene encoding RNASE1 remained unchanged after duplication, but its twin, which encodes RNASE1B, changed rapidly. Furthermore, the changes were not random; most caused the enzyme to become more negatively charged, which could affect its interaction with the RNA it degrades.

[Ringer]

ok. lenskis ecoli-horizontal gene transfer, those hox genes-over/under expressing genes for body parts (no "new" genes coming into being),

 

 

nylonase http://aem.asm.org/c...5/2020.full.pdf

 

"Though a molecular basis for the emergence of nylon oligomer metabolism in PAO5502 is still unknown"

 

They don't mean it wasn't evolution. Let's look at what comes right after your quote, "it is probable that the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this

adaptation." Man that sounds a lot like evolution talk.

 

human chromosome 2-assigning unobserved cause in past to account for telemores today.

 

What?

 

please what other "rock solid" evidence is there for this rofl process? my original post is-addition of NEW GENES which code for NEW proteins which serve a NEW purpose is factual in that it i was stating it is IMPOSSIBLE. please do cite some literature showing how copies of genes assume a new purpose...please....i will wait....no "thought" experiments please and also please do actually read the literature yourself before citing THANKS A LOT

 

I have given you lots of links which you have failed to even begin to form an argument against other than starting new threads on the same topics. Please tell me which ones you have read and which you haven't and what is wrong with them.

[Ophiolite]

Alternatively he could just ignore the hard questions, request thread closure and add snide comments. You know, sort of play to his strengths.

[Ringer]

Alternatively he could just ignore the hard questions, request thread closure and add snide comments. You know, sort of play to his strengths.

 

I'm not sure why, but this made me all sorts of happy.

[Arete]

(geneticists comment please ) so even if a mutation swaps round some nucleotides and lvl1 info remains the same lvl2 info gets destroyed. (correct sequencing for coding has been lost)

 

The issue is that all combinations of the four nucleotides into codons actually encode amino acids, so the addition of point mutations to an expressed gene never result in the gene being un-translateable and in fact, non-synonymous mutations will result in a novel amino acid sequence. So you never lose "lvl2" information, simply change it.

 

Randomly changing letters of words in sentence results in them becoming un-translateable. This does not happen with codons and as such, your analogy of random rearrangements of letters in words making them unintelligible is not reflective of point mutations of nucleotides in a gene which cannot result in unintelligible codons - as there's no such thing.

 

Take a short 5 codon hypothetical gene sequence:

att gct ttg gat cca (IALDP)

Even if we randomly add a point mutation to every codon we still have a gene encoding 5 amino acids:

gtt gca atg gct ccc (VAMAP)

 

In addition, gene duplication events and insertions are documented - as such, the addition of genetic information to a genome is a known fact: an interesting example is that a gene duplication event is responsible for shape variation in tomato varieties:

http://www.sciencema...5869/1527.short

 

So if the above example represented a situation in which we had a gene duplication event followed by different point mutations in each gene we would have the addition of novel genetic information to a genome.

 

I actually work on kinteoplast parasites which avoid the acquired immune system of their hosts through antigenic variation of their surface protein coats. They have 7 expressed genes encoding this protein coat, but archives of over a thousand partial and pseudogenic non-expressed versions of the genes encoding this protein coat. Gene switching in these parasites can occur as fast as every hundred generations, never allowing the host's immune system to accurately detect and eliminate the current generation of parasites.

 

The mechanism by which these parasites switch to a new protein coat is through ecotopic recombination of the expressed protein coat gene with one of the neutrally evolving non-expressed genes to create a novel (i.e. new) surface coating the immune system of the host hasn't seen before. As such, the parasites I directly work on are reliant upon the creation of new genes in order to exist.

 

http://users.path.ox...05_berriman.pdf

http://www.nature.co...ature07982.html

Edited May 29, 2012 by Arete