Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,10:21)|
|Ioseb: 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.
Wrong. The vast majority of proteins include amino acids that are completely superfluous to their structure and function. They can be replaced with other amino acids or even deleted with no effect. So no, you can't just count amino acids, because number of amino acids doesn't directly correspond to function, complexity, information, meaning, or anything else he's suggesting.
|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
Really? I guess Ioseb didn't notice that Sequence 2 is simply the DNA version of the following:
Note that it also contains the AUG start codon (which codes for methionine), followed by codons for threonine (ACC) and aspartate (GAC). Even better, Sequence 2 includes a stop codon (UAG), with is also INDISPENSIBLE for function.
|Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.|
I understand it a lot better than Ioseb does. That's clear.
|So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen.|
Congratulations to Ioseb for "proving" what no one was disputing. We all agree that information exists. We even agree that it can be measured, as long as you're careful about precisely defining the kind of information you're measuring.
The issue is not whether information exists. The issue is Ioseb's (and others') claim that information can't be increased by evolution. To wit:
|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
Easy: Richard Lenski's demonstration that E. coli can spontaneously evolve the ability to use citrate as an energy source.
Of course, Ioseb may object that demonstrating evolution of such a relatively simple new function is a long way from demonstrating that fins can evolve into legs and wings. And it's true that we don't (yet) understand the details of how that could happen. But we haven't yet had the luxury of running controlled evolutionary experiments over the course of several million years. What we have done is proven that evolution really happens on observable scales, and that it's consistent with the reams of data from molecular phylogenies & the fossil & geological record going back billions of years.
What has Ioseb shown? Can he provide any shred of positive evidence for a designer (or whatever else he thinks accounts for biological complexity)?
|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.|
And here we see a clue to Ioseb's real objection to evolution: it's "evil." And what makes it evil? Could it be because it contradicts Ioseb's religious beliefs? Naaah.
P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.