Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 15 2011,15:01)|
|[quote=Southstar,Nov. 15 2011,12:21] |
|Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)|
| Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.|
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.
here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:
------transcript starts here -----------
Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?
Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)
By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.
As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.
Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.
Seeing as that the smallest and most simple proteins are composed of 10's of aminoacids,("translated" from the comparison of the triplet codon / anticodon) for example myoglobine has 153, which is about 459 nucliotide bases.
So we're talking about 1 or 2 nucleotide changes on 459, and in most cases the changes don't even cause a variation in the translated aminoacid (every aminoacid can be translated by more codons, therefore by more necleotide sequences).
See these are the measures I'm refering to with regards to the mutations, or at least the most probable one's that can arrise which lead to the adding of information under the form of new codifing sequences: I don't really cionsider the other mutations as they are deleterious, they have a wider applicability on the sequences and therefore the probability of adding codifing information is reduced.
In simple terms, one thing is to change a letter in one chapter of a book at random, and another is to change whole sentences or words.
Southstar said: Well even if your nucleotide is smaller, how did you go about determening a loss of information?
Isobe said: Well simple, just by the fact that the nucleotide sequence is no longer able to codify the same protiens, which then seize to function or at least function less.
Southstar said: Yes and in terms of evolution this is no problem we have a lot of species out there that have lost functions. See evolution dosen't have to have a direction.
Ioseb said: Well yes but it's still proof of a loss of information. Besides the point is that there is no way that you could go from bacteria to human by just changing randomly one or two nucleotides and even then you need to have these passed down to the following generation which is even rarer.
See your silly evolution rests on mutations which don't occur and natural selction which is essentially passive. Selection will never and can never add information, it could favour and organism on the basis of fisical circumstances, but in small it's totaly random and blind.
Southstar said: Still you have shown a loss of ability sooo what? Hamsters have lost their tails, dolphins went back to the sea and?
Isoeb said: Don't be stupid! You don't have the faintest idea of what it would take to do the kind of mutations that you have just mentioned. Your not a scientist like me. You're just a silly girl. What do you know about molecular biology?
Ah and by the way those silly studies that you posted regarding macroevolution well that was all microevolution. You know you don't have any proof of macroevolution so don't try pawning micro studies. Remember what carl sagan said: Great claims require great proof. You don't have any.
Southstar said: goodness Carl is shaking in his tomb and could visit you tonight. I'd watch my back.
---- end of transcript ----
To me it seems he's avoiding the difficult questions with technobable. But I would need some valid arguments to take him down. If I just reply that it's rubbish the fence sitting people will say "why do you say that"? So I need to show that it's rubbish.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin