RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
KCdgw



Posts: 369
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2011,05:24   

Quote (olegt @ May 01 2011,14:59)
And having told us that he does not understand Shannon information, Mung pontificated thus:
   
Quote
Schneider assumes that the binding site starts with no information content because he starts with a randomly generated sequence of bases at the binding site.

After a binding site has “evolved” to the point that it can be recognized, he then measures the information content (at the binding site – as the reduction in uncertainty) and subtracts his “before” and “after” to calculate his information “gain.”

But again, that’s not how Shannon Information works, imo. With Shannon Information you can’t get a gain in information. (And do you get a gain in information by a reduction in uncertainty?) Am I just way off base?


Yeah. By, like, a mile.

Mung is one of my favorite IDC's. He is a die-hard acolyte of Walter Remine, but doesn't understand anything ReMine has written, as the following hilarious exchange revealed:  
Quote
 
Quote
 
Quote
If you substitute one allele over another, you replace the old with the new. We are talking about allele substitutions, after all. Surely that doesn't have to be pointed out to you.

KC


Actually it does need to be pointed out to me :).

You are talking about substitutions. I am talking about increasing the number of copies of an allele. It is my sincere opinion that Walter ReMine's paper is also talkiung about increasing the number of copies of an ellele.

I have no intention of being difficult or incapable of being convinced on this matter, so please feel free to express yourself if you think that is actually the case.

I hope that I have already demonstrated that I can be corrected, e.g., on the issue of whether Walter's paper was unworthy of publication.

While you are talking about substitutions and replacement, that is NOT the primary contribution of ReMine's paper. And this is just one factor which sets Walter's paper apart from anything which preceeded it.


Mung, the entire subject of Walter's paper is the cost of substitution:  

 
Quote
This paper focuses on a specific cost: the cost of substitution (p.114).


I don't know how more specific Walter can get for you.

 
Quote
[I hope it's not necessary to say this, but I am not Walter ReMine, lol! Nor am I a "mouthpiece" for Walter ReMine. I am merely an acolyte ;)]


Well, since you don't seem to have read what Walter wrote, you probably aren't Walter. But you really need to relax a bit and understand that we are discussing a paper that claims to have relevance to evolution. Besides, you will remember (or maybe not, given the above,) ReMine wrote:

 
Quote
Evolution requires the substitution of traits into a population
.

So, do you need any more quotes (I could quote the title, for example where the word substitution occurs)? Would a word count be useful?  

 
 
Quote
The primary concern of ReMine's paper is not what is necessary to replace the "old type" with the "new type."



Yes it is, or substitution would not occur.

 
Quote
The primary focus of Walter's paper is in what it take to get from A to B where both A and B are expressed in terms of ONLY the "new type" and the number of copies of the "new type."


If the new type simply increases in number, and does not  do so at the expense of the old type in the population, substitution will not occur. The reproductive rate of the new type must be higher (that's where the 'excess' comes in) than that of the old type. As I hinted earlier, one can express the substitution only in terms of the new type, but only by 'redefining' the old type away.

Let's take an example, and use Walter's non-standard notation from his book (for nostalgia's sake):

Consider a trait P which is being substituted for trait Q in a population of size S.  In this scenario:

P + Q = S.

Now, can we talk about the substitution only in terms of increase in P, say by defining Q as S - P? Is that truly eliminating Q from consideration, or are we really only making an algebraic substitution? We can talk about increases in P only, but for the substitution to occur, S-P has to eventually equal zero at some point. The only way for that to happen is when the number of individuals of the old type are gone, whether  you express their numbers as Q or S-P. An algebraic substitution is not much of a relevation, Mung. And that basically is what you are trying to say is the heart of ReMine's paper, whether you realize it or not.      


KC


 [QUOTE][/QUOTE]

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]