Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There is a world of difference between a pattern which can occur by accident in nature (like a snow flake) and information which requires a symbolic code to transmit (like DNA).

Since DNA is transfered from parent to child, after millions of generations things can change into something that only looks planned.

Originally posted by miriam0566
im sorry, im not saying this as a personal bash, but that is one of the most scientifically ignorant statements ive heard in a while.

If you think so. The problem might be that you fail to actually understand information theory.

the function of DNA is to tell the cell what to do and provide intructions.

its a manual that the cells uses to determine whether it is a skin cell or a liver cell etc.

meaning IS required.

What does ATCCGTAA mean then?

DNA is a mixture of chemicals doing chemical like things. DNA-based processes have as much meaning as:

HCl + NaOH ---> NaCl + H20

You could say it has some form of information and instructions. Each atom has instructions in how to bond and react in particular situations, but it's just physics and chemistry. But what does it actually mean?

if the DNA has no meaning to the cell and its just a jumble of letters, then what is its purpose? how does the body know if your a red head or blonde or bald?

It's a lot of chemicals doing chemical type things. If you remember I did say originally that I was just assuming that we could measure such a thing as information in DNA.

How do we measure it? Do we now have to measure meaning as well?

Do you really think that gene duplication and divergence would not be an increase in information in whatever way you want to define it? If that isn't an increase in DNA-based information, then nothing is.

But I can see you want to move away from that pretty quickly. Quite fatal to your original claim.

BROWN does have more information than ñkjhsbhuehgbp

your just assuming that more letters = more information.

And that can be right, but it depends on the circumstances. Information and meaning don't mean the same thing in information theory. Even random noise is information.

Thus, this:

XXXXXYYYY

contains the same information as:

5X4Y

But: asfhjkdue, has more than: dgjsk.

However, that's an aside for actual information theory. If you want to say that the possibility that:

BROWN ---> BROWNBROWN -----> BROWNBLOWN

and its analogous biochemical process of:

Gene 1 ----> Gene 1a + Gene 1b ----> Gene 1 + Gene 2

isn't an increase in information, then I'll just rofl and leave.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There is a world of difference between a pattern which can occur by accident in nature (like a snow flake) and information which requires a symbolic code to transmit (like DNA).

Since DNA is transfered from parent to child, after millions of generations things can change into something that only looks planned.

no it cant

its a well established truth that DNA is needed for life on earth to exist. without DNA, a cell would not know how to form, much less perform the nessesary actions i needs to do to survive

at no point in the history can DNA be considered ¨a spare part¨ that was developed and fine tuned.

Originally posted by melatonin
What does ATCCGTAA mean then?

DNA is a mixture of chemicals doing chemical like things. DNA-based processes have as much meaning as:

HCl + NaOH ---> NaCl + H20

You could say it has some form of information and instructions.

some form of information? specific points of DNA can be isolated so as to switch on and switch off specific traits.

chemical reactions it may be, but they are very complex.

if ATCCGTAA is at the beginning and there is another ATCCGTAA some 50 more times, how does the cell know what means what? but somehow it does.

DNA with 4 letters, puncuation and context provides VERY SPECIFIC information, not ¨some form.¨

BROWN does have more information than ñkjhsbhuehgbp

your just assuming that more letters = more information.

However, that's an aside for actual information theory. If you want to say that the possibility that:

BROWN ---> BROWNBROWN -----> BROWNBLOWN

and its analogous biochemical process of:

Gene 1 ----> Gene 1a + Gene 1b ----> Gene 1 + Gene 2

isn't an increase in information, then I'll just rofl and leave.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]

okay, take a manual, any manual. lets say a computer manual. now copy it. staple it to the end.

more information? or the same information twice?

look, i understand what you are talking about with information theory...

but you are assuming that DNA is chemical gibberish and that somehow this tells our bodies how to form. its just not true. i think its safe to assume that the genetic scientific community would disagree too.

which leads me to the real reason you are argueing this point. the fact is, if life does and always had a manual (complete with letters and puncuation) that specifically tells the lifeform what shape and structure and color and whether it will have bones and what type of heart and how much hair or scales and whether they will be artistic or not etc etc etc etc etc, then it is evidence (not a conclusion, just evidence) of design.

I know atheists love to say, there is NO evidence of god. but i think we are staring at some right now. (again evidence, not a conclusion, im not saying this proves conclusively that god exists)

i think that why DNA is gibberish to you. because the less complex DNA is, the easier it is to say that it evolved. that its something that could develop by accident. am im sorry, i disagree.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by miriam0566]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Faith is not a highly esteemed word in the scientific community. Richard Dawkins says faith is belief without evidence. In contrast, the Bible says faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is not the same thing as belief.

Belief is something people can give to themselves whereas faith is something God or the supernatural gives you that is why it is called the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is the evidence or "physical proof" you receive from the spiritual for having believed.

You may say what difference does it make, it makes all the difference, because all God asks of us in order to receive anything from Him in this world is that we believe that He is.

The specifics of what characteristic of His nature we believe defines what we receive from God.

God is our savior, and in that sense for example to receive salvation, it is very specific what we should believe.

Rom 10: 9b believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If we believe Him then He will give us the evidence, "physical proof" needed for faith, in this case salvation or "wholeness" the making whole of the body and soul by the gift of holy spirit missing from the body and soul mix before salvation, that gift or reward is what becomes our faith because we believed Him.

We receive faith for faith every thing after its kind, we reap what we sow.

But that is not the end of the story of belief or faith, there is also what the bible refers to as, "the law of believing," which has been called all kinds of things down through the years and today is most often thought of as, "the law of attraction."

The law of believing is one of the three abiding laws which govern the operations of the spiritual reality upon our reality.

All of the things we can receive of God are presupposed upon the law of believing.

First you give yourself a belief then God will give you faith in that belief or not, by evidencing in your physical reality in some way the reward of your having believed the idea, the whole process is described as the law of believing.

The law of believing exists for the purpose of allowing any individual who desires a way to prove for themselves spiritual things.

Like for instance with the nine manifestation of holy spirit, which "manifestation" is simply a long winded way of saying, "evidence"

The manifestation are the, "evidences" of the gift of holy spirit, proof in the senses reality of the spiritual reality of your salvation from God.

There are also other meanings which can be applied to the word faith or believe which are more subtle but I would say that the word could have as many as five separate meanings depending on the idea you are attempting to communicate.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

I contend that Science itself is fundamentally founded on faith.

It is not faith it is belief in some idea or theory, then evidence for or against the notion is gathered and a conclusion is reached, but I agree with the jest of your argument.

To really understand science you need to understand how human history works versus how we want to think it works and how religion and science want us to think it works.

Human history is shaped by supernatural events and we rise and fall from spirituality to religion to science back to spirituality.

Spirituality is all knowledge and power in the hands of all the people without respect to persons.

Religion is an attempt to control the knowledge of all power by denying its availability to all people, with respect to persons, and science is the attempt of the individual to acquire power by natural means and escape the powerlessness of religion.

It is all about power, real power to exercise dominion literally over our reality, science and religion are a shell game of distraction for control by the rulers of this world to maintain their rulership over us.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by newday]

ABE: OK, in an effort to reduce future obfuscation, and get to the main course, this has been seriously edited (mainly removing less relevant issues). I'll maybe reassess the rest of your post, miriam, when we sort this:

Originally posted by miriam0566
okay, take a manual, any manual. lets say a computer manual. now copy it. staple it to the end.

more information? or the same information twice?

Which is why I asked the question: 'More information?'

I wanted you to make an assessment of each step, and the total outcome. First duplication, then divergence to produce a new functional gene. It would sort of help me see where you're coming from.

However, since then you've been obfuscating.

Cut to the chase. Is gene duplication, then divergence to produce a new functional gene an increase in information or not?

If not, why not?

You see, from information theory even the duplication alone would be an increase. Obviously you have a different conception (of info and measuring it), but you're keeping it secret thus far.

Now, the bit you ignored is that then we have a second step whereby a new functional gene is produced by mutation, now we have two different genes doing different things. Not just a pretty much redundant duplication. But if you have something else to offer regarding a way to measure information, go for it.

Gene duplication and divergence. We start with one gene (A), then we have A + A, then we have A + B. By mutation (duplication and perhaps single point), one gene produces two genes. Each do different but maybe related things (perhaps part of a biochemical cascade).

Gene 1 ----> Gene 1a + Gene 1b ----> Gene 1 + Gene 2

One Gene leads to two Genes. We originally had one. Now we have two different genes. Maybe two mutations required, both known to occur in the real-world.

Increase or not? If not, why not?

[edit on 14-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by miriam0566
ill sorry, im really hungry and i ahve alot of work tommarrow. i will try to reply by tommarrow night

sorry

No worries, miriam. Enjoy your munchies, and don't work to hard.

Cheers.

When did this turn in to Biological Genetics class

Originally posted by beach2197
When did this turn in to Biological Genetics class

Since someone made specious claims about DNA and information?

However, you're probably right when compared to the original post. 'Biological Genetics' class is currently in the miRNA thread I think.

Oooh! This is on-topic.

Truly they do not have to conflict. After all science is rooted deeply in religious faith. It is only the out of control egos of some prominent atheist scientists that cause the conflicts. They claim science has dispensed with God. Ii is more true to say science has come close to proving his existence. (look for an upcoming post demonstrating this)

This is a juicy bit of work. Heh.

Firstly, 'science rooted deeply in religious faith'?

Not really. People of faith were those who made major efforts to form the scientific method originally, couldn't have been any other way. Only in the same way people of faith were those who made the printing press and then printed a bible.

Atheists and heretics were burned at stakes in those dark days. But science is agnostic (methodological naturalism), that's the way these people wanted it. You can view it as a way to uncover god's work, or to understand nature, or whatever floats ya boat. Even Bacon essentially said, nature teaches people how to interpret the bible. So not t'other way round. You might want to digest that, whammy.

Secondly, 'It is only the out of control egos of some prominent atheist scientists that cause the conflicts'.

Haha. 'Only'. I'm sure Bruno and Galileo might have had something to say about that. Atheists have only really been safe in popping their heads above the trenches since the days of d'Holbach (after the greeks). Deism being the trendy and safer option. In that time, the major conflicts surrounding science have been sourced from those holding to genesis-based creationism, and now the modern trojan-horse ID creationism. As noted above *waves*, people of faith have been attacking biology, geology, and physics for around 100 years. And in the US, the attacks on good science education have been relentless, and are still ongoing. Moreover, the major ID proponents want to theologise (is dat a word? T'is now) almost every aspect of science (from biology to psychology), and culture itself.

But it's Dawkins'/Dennett's/Harris'/Hitchens' fault - he/they wrote a book that you didn't like in the last few years. Haha, that's brilliant. Some think they have certainly had an impact - a scottish church even blamed their dwindling numbers on Dawkins.

Lastly, 'Ii is more true to say science has come close to proving his existence'.

If you say so.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Cut to the chase. Is gene duplication, then divergence to produce a new functional gene an increase in information or not?

If not, why not?

i comment bigwhammy made raised a red flag for me. so i looked up information theory on wiki, not that ill be an expert but at least i would be able to make some sort of intelligible response to you.

yes according to information theory, a gene that duplicates and then diverges does create more ¨information¨

but i came across this statement in wiki

Information theory, however, does not involve message importance or meaning, as these are matters of the quality of data rather than the quantity of data, the latter of which is determined solely by probabilities.

so information theory treats a jam on the keyboard such as ¨aehoru¨ the same as ¨BROWN¨, except the former has more ¨information"

However, since then you've been obfuscating.

i think that it is you who has been obfuscating.

Genes contain meaning. in your original quote you said this ¨produce a new FUNCTIONAL gene¨

define functional, what is required to make the gene functional? the information has to be relevant. which of course relevance has little to do with information theory right? you´ve been going around an around about information theory and it has little to do with the main debate.

information theory is a nice way of saying that DNA can advance evolution, but mutations are seen as harmful to DNA. if the cell cant read it, and the DNA is gibberish, it doesnt create a step forward, it goes a step back.

just look at radiation poisoning. radiation is known to change genetic material. and ALWAYS to the worse.

more ¨information¨ doesnt mean more information. with DNA the information has to be relevant.

Originally posted by miriam0566
intelligible response to you.

If it hits the spot, it's all good.

yes according to information theory, a gene that duplicates and then diverges does create more ¨information¨

Excellent!

So mutations can increase information in the genome. They're not just a destructive influence.

but i came across this statement in wiki

Information theory, however, does not involve message importance or meaning, as these are matters of the quality of data rather than the quantity of data, the latter of which is determined solely by probabilities.

so information theory treats a jam on the keyboard such as ¨aehoru¨ the same as ¨BROWN¨, except the former has more ¨information"

Information theory does not involve meaning/importance. Yup.

And, yes, aehoru has more info cf. BROWN, but little meaning to me. Maybe to someone else.

I pointed this stuff out earlier. This is the most accepted way to measure information.

i think that it is you who has been obfuscating.

Genes contain meaning. in your original quote you said this ¨produce a new FUNCTIONAL gene¨

define functional, what is required to make the gene functional? the information has to be relevant. which of course relevance has little to do with information theory right? you´ve been going around an around about information theory and it has little to do with the main debate.

I suppose a functional gene would be one which has a function. For example, codes for a product.

Genes contain no meaning. They do chemical things. You might attach meaning yourself, but there is no intrinsic meaning.

It's not a language. A code perhaps. Information, yeah, in some form.

information theory is a nice way of saying that DNA can advance evolution, but mutations are seen as harmful to DNA. if the cell cant read it, and the DNA is gibberish, it doesnt create a step forward, it goes a step back.

Not always. Most mutations are actually neutral. Many detrimental. A few beneficial.

Most detrimental's won't even see the light of day.

just look at radiation poisoning. radiation is known to change genetic material. and ALWAYS to the worse.

more ¨information¨ doesnt mean more information. with DNA the information has to be relevant.

heh, more 'information' doesn't equal more information. OK.

Essentially you're focusing on function and defining that as information. Some genes can lose their function after duplication (pseduogenes), but others can develop new functions. That was the point.

Therefore, according to your definition, gene duplication and divergence can produce new 'information' and also new information.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Volume 18, Issue 6, June 2003, Pages 292-298

Evolution by gene duplication: an update

Jianzhi Zhang

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 3003 Nat. Sci. Bldg, 830 N. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Available online 13 May 2003.

Abstract
The importance of gene duplication in supplying raw genetic material to biological evolution has been recognized since the 1930s. Recent genomic sequence data provide substantial evidence for the abundance of duplicated genes in all organisms surveyed. But how do newly duplicated genes survive and acquire novel functions, and what role does gene duplication play in the evolution of genomes and organisms? Detailed molecular characterization of individual gene families, computational analysis of genomic sequences and population genetic modeling can all be used to help us uncover the mechanisms behind the evolution by gene duplication.

my bold

This is old hat. You IDers need to keep up. I know ID has changed little since Paley, but we're in the 21st century now.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

yes according to information theory, a gene that duplicates and then diverges does create more ¨information¨

Excellent!

So mutations can increase information in the genome. They're not just a destructive influence.

hold on. you are jumping to a conclusion. an increase of information doesnt nessesarily mean the increase isnt destructive.

I pointed this stuff out earlier. This is the most accepted way to measure information.

measure the information yes, but measuring information is not as important as understanding what the information is doing. if i jam the keyboard, it has little consequence to anything. its static, stuff. fine you have more of it, but its still inconsquential.

DNA however is not inconsequential. without it the cell stops, it wont know what to do. it is very consequential.

Not always. Most mutations are actually neutral. Many detrimental. A few beneficial.

Most detrimental's won't even see the light of day.

would you like to provide proof of benificial mutations? i believe all lab examples have been detrimental. im also not sure if i believe that sickel cell anemia vs malaria is a good example either.

The importance of gene duplication in supplying raw genetic material to biological evolution has been recognized since the 1930s. Recent genomic sequence data provide substantial evidence for the abundance of duplicated genes in all organisms surveyed. But how do newly duplicated genes survive and acquire novel functions, and what role does gene duplication play in the evolution of genomes and organisms? Detailed molecular characterization of individual gene families, computational analysis of genomic sequences and population genetic modeling can all be used to help us uncover the mechanisms behind the evolution by gene duplication.

ok so the excerpt says that genetic duplication supplies raw material, but its basically admitting that new functions from this duplicated material have not been observed... hmmm i wonder why.

because the information needs relevance. a duplicated manual is the same information times 2.

evolution by gene duplication is a thoery, it has not been observed and therefore can not be stated as fact.

Genetics, Vol. 168, 1421-1432, November 2004, Copyright © 2004
doi:10.1534/genetics.104.027631

Rapid Evolution Through Gene Duplication and Subfunctionalization of the Testes-Specific 4 Proteasome Subunits in Drosophila
Dara G. Torgerson1 and Rama S. Singh

Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Evidence suggests that duplicated genes are retained at a much higher rate than originally thought and that functional divergence of gene copies is a major factor promoting their retention in the genome. We find that two Drosophila testes-specific 4 proteasome subunit genes (4-t1 and 4-t2) have a higher polymorphism within species and are significantly more diverged between species than the somatic 4 gene. Our data suggest that following gene duplication, the 4-t1 gene experienced relaxed selective constraints, whereas the 4-t2 gene experienced positive selection acting on several codons. We report significant heterogeneity in evolutionary rates among all three paralogs at homologous codons, indicating that functional divergence has coincided with genic divergence. Reproductive subfunctionalization may allow for a more rapid evolution of reproductive traits and a greater specialization of testes function. Our data add to the increasing evidence that duplicated genes experience lower selective constraints and in some cases positive selection following duplication. Newly duplicated genes that are freer from selective constraints may provide a mechanism for developing new interactions and a pathway for the evolution of new genes.

again, MAY provide a mechanism for developing new interactions and a pathway for the evolution of new genes.

you quote excerpts and implying that gene duplication is a proven way in which genes evolve, but all the excerpts say is that it is a theory and hasnt been observed.

has the definition of ¨fact¨ changed when i was sleeping or something?

So now it isn't enough to show an information increase, which I have done, I must also show it is not 'destructive'. As the abstract notes above, they can be involved in positive selection. That is, increasing fitness being selected.

yes, you do. the burden of theory is that it must be proven. all you have proven with gene duplication is that there is more ¨stuff¨. you call it information, but in the end its just more stuff. and yes the excerpt above says it can be involved, not that it is.

the process has not been proven

I feel there's little point in me making the effort, I post well-supported information, you do a definitional jig and perform olympic standard gymnastics. And then I spend a lot of time cleaning up the poop.

hey thanks, that really made a sucky day more cheerful for me.

See abstract above. That one took me about 10 seconds to find. There's another in the miRNA thread showing how the same mechanism appears involved in adaptive evolution of miRNA.

i did, and it said that it may be responsible not that it is.