Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)|
|It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.|
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.
Finaly I forced Ioseb to give me some more information on what he considers as information and how he plans to measure it here is the transcript:
----------transcript starts here-------------
Southstar: You measured what? As I have shown by the nucleotide sequences above you were not able to tell which had more information... case closed. Until you do so you're really going to need another argument.
Ioseb: Sorry you didn't prove anything with your little game.
I have already told you that we are not interested in measuring the information. The real question is whether information exists and if this information is specified and complex.
You've just run out of critisims haven't you that's why you keep asking for measurement.
Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.
This is the measure of information I'm talking about.
For example the section of a ribosome of 1600 amminoacids and a nucleotide is obviously more complicated than a Myglobin of 153 aminoacids
But between the two molecules of 150 aminoacids i'm in no way interested in determening which has more information. But rather what information they hold. You know Information is commonly used in biology.
Regarding your stupid quiz let me show you and your ignorant friends how real biology is done.
Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).
See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.
So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced.
Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene,
if you change it from
all that simply happens is that the robosome will not recognise the RNA and won't even start the translation process.
So what do we have protien non produced = loss of function = problems or death of the organism
Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.
Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example
sequence1: get me some cheese
Sequence2: eef hg thki loffr
See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.
So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen. You wouldn't get up to get the cheese with the second sequence would you.
Southstar Said: Well listen in the end of the game even if you are right you have just proved a loss of function sooo what this in no way disproves evolution. look here, here is a study that just goes to show gain of function http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 - Biology on a chip.
Ioseb said: Thanks i rest my case! You brought a study which proves that without inteligence nothing happens. I'll be using this little jewel that you supplied to me many more times. But first I tell your decendent from monkey friends why:
Now let's see evolution requires processes that are by chance and that there is no divine intervention and what do you bring here. A study that proves that you can't get there unless you skew the chances and you interviene through intelligence. Wow
The scientists in this study have created a controlled enviorment , and skewed the program so as to give them the resault they wanted. THE PRESTIGE! This people is what the fake science is pawning you. Because they were not able to find proof in nature they fabricated it. just like the whole theory, it depends on pure fabrications.
Go home to your monkey friends and tell them thanks for further proof AGAINST evolution. If they wound stop playing videogames they might understand that nature is designed by God.
Southstar said: Okay so in the ndo you just proved a loss of function sooo what? Evolution doesn't have a direction. A lot of animals have lost functions so?
Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms.
Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything...
Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase
See I have presented a peer reviewed study by an eminent scientist that proves that loss of function is almost the law. You have shown nothing!
To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.
--------- transcript ends here----------
I think it is obvious that he is now mixing up meaning with information. He would chose the churchil speech and say: That what counts is that it gives you extra information it makes you do something. Now he's not interested in counting the duration of the speech he's counting the extra quality what it makes you do.
Any idea on how to break this down?
"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