Cubist
Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007
|
| Quote (cryptoguru @ Feb. 18 2015,05:58) | | Quote | One: Does Sequence X1 qualify as "new and novel genetic material"? It's a yes-or-no question, cryptoguru; either yes, Sequence X1 does, in fact, qualify as "new and novel genetic material", or no, Sequence X1 does not, in fact, qualify as "new or novel genetic material". It's all well and good to go on about "probability" and "scale" and yada yada, but I really would like to see a yes or a no, and thus far, I ain't seen a yes or a no.
Two: Does Sequence X1 contain any "new and novel genetic material"? Again, it's a yes-or-no question, to which either yes, it does or no, it doesn't would both be relevant responses. Going on about "scale" and "probability" and yada yada, contrariwise, is not a particularly relevant response, as best I can tell. |
This is the fallacy of many questions (e.g. Do you still beat your wife?)... |
Bullshit it’s “the fallacy of many questions”. It is, rather, an attempt to get you to apply your definition of “new and novel genetic material” to a specific nucleotide sequence, and indicate whether that specific nucleotide sequence either is (entirely) "new and novel genetic material", or else contains (some amount of) "new and novel genetic material".
Transparent rationalization/excuse for not even attempting to answer the question is noted.
Way back on page 1 of this thread, I asked, "What does 'new information' look like? Given an arbitrary string of nucleotides, and a mutation which alters that string of nucleotides, how can you tell whether or not the post-mutation version of that string contains any "new" information?"
Your reply to this question, which appeared on page 2 of this thread, is "New information is new and novel genetic material that codes for new function or traits in the organism i.e. not a point mutation in a control gene that switches other pre-existing functionality off/on or a trade/inheriting of genetic material between bacteria ...NEW genetic material that codes for new function; this has never been observed." So according to cryptoguru, the specific case of "a point mutation in a control gene that switches other pre-existing functionality off/on or a trade/inheriting of genetic material between bacteria" does not either "new information", or "new and novel genetic material". Fine—but this definition does nothing to help us determine whether a point mutation in a control gene that does something other than switch pre-existing functionality on/off constitutes "new information" or "new and novel genetic material". This definition also does nothing to help us determine whether any mutation other than a point mutation in a control gene constitutes "new information" or "new and novel genetic material". This definition also does nothing to help us determine whether any mutation that affects DNA other than the DNA in a control gene constitutes "new information" or "new and novel genetic material".
There is, of course, nothing wrong with a statement whose applicability is highly restricted. But if one does make a statement whose applicability is highly restricted, one ought not go on to declare that said statement has any effect on anything outside the highly restricted domain of said statement's applicability.
| Quote | | [the fallacy of many questions] is the rhetorical trick of asking a question that cannot be answered without admitting a presupposition that may be false. |
The only "presupposition" I am aware of in the question does Sequence X1 qualify as “new and novel genetic material? is the "presupposition" that there actually is a meaningful, usable definition of “new and novel” in the phrase "new and novel genetic material". This presupposition may well be false, and the more bafflegab you disgorge instead of, you know, answering the question, the more likely it becomes that this presupposition is, in fact, false.
| Quote | | I defined what I meant by "new and novel" ... |
Bullshit you did. Feel free to provide a link to the post in which you defined this term… or, more likely, provide another unfounded I did define my terms I did I did I did so define my terms! assertion.
| Quote | | I am qualifying new material as that which is quantifiably non-trivial. |
Okay… so in addition to "new and novel", and "unique", the "new material" you speak of has to be "quantifiably non-trivial". Please explain, as you have conspicuously neglected to do thus far, how to distinguish "genetic material" which is "new", from "genetic material" which is "novel", and from "genetic material" which is "unique". Oh, and now that you've thrown "quantifiably non-trivial" into the pot, please explain how to distinguish "genetic material" which is "new", from "genetic material" which is "quantifiably non-trivial". Or, if you cannot explain how to distinguish "genetic material" which is "new" from "genetic material" which is "novel" and/or "unique" and/or "quantifiably non-trivial", please explain how your use of "new" as a separate term is supposed to help anyone understand what the heck is going on.
Please explain how to distinguish "genetic material" which is "novel", from "genetic material" which is "unique", and from "genetic material" which is "quantifiably non-trivial". Or, if you cannot explain how to distinguish "genetic material" which is "novel" from "genetic material" which is "unique" and/or "quantifiably non-trivial", please explain how your use of "novel" as a separate term is supposed to help anyone understand what the heck is going on.
Please explain how to distinguish "genetic material" which is "unique", from "genetic material" which is "quantifiably non-trivial". Or, if you cannot explain how to distinguish "genetic material" which is "unique" from "genetic material" which is "quantifiably non-trivial", please explain how your use of "unique" as a separate term is supposed to help anyone understand what the heck is going on.
| Quote | | A small change can occur by chance, so can a few small changes. A lot of change in a short period of time that is quantifiably useful for new purpose and not pre-existant is what we observe in ORFan genes. Scale is important |
That's nice, cryptoguru. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with determining whether or not a given nucleotide sequence does or doesn't constitute/contain "genetic material" which is "new" and/or "novel" and/or "unique" and/or "quantifiably non-trivial", but it's nice. I'll just cut-and-paste the original iteration of my is this 'new' 'genetic information'? question from the post in which it appeared…
Here's an arbitrary nucleotide sequence, with a randomly-picked nucleotide—the thymine in the 4th codon—colored red:
gcc tac agg gat cgt ggg gac ctt acg aat ggc ctt ttt gac tat tct tcg aat cta agc tca gca tca ttc ccg tct acg gga agt ccc ttc cca ata cat atc ctc ggc acc gca ctt gca ggc tca cgc ttc gcg tca ttt agg tca
That sequence of codons yields the following sequence of amino acids, with the 4th amino acid colored red on account of it's the AA that's yielded by the codon with the red-colored nucleotide:
alanine, tyrosine, arginine, aspartic acid, arginine, glycine, aspartic acid, leucine, threonine, asparagine, glycine, leucine, phenylalanine, aspartic acid, tyrosine, serine, serine, asparagine, leucine, serine, serine, alanine, serine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, glycine, serine, proline, phenylalanine, proline, isoleucine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, glycine, threonine, alanine, leucine, alanine, glycine, serine, arginine, phenylalanine, alanine, serine, phenylalanine, arginine, serine
One possible mutation of that sequence would be if the thymine in the 4th codon was deleted, like so (and the thereby-altered 4th codon is colored red here):
gcc tac agg gac gtg ggg acc tta cga atg gcc ttt ttg act att ctt cga atc taa gct cag cat cat tcc cgt cta cgg gaa gtc cct tcc caa tac ata tcc tcg gca ccg cac ttg cag gct cac gct tcg cgt cat tta ggt ca
Since a codon is three nucleotides in a row, deleting that one nucleotide from the 4th codon in the original sequence doesn't just change that 4th codon; it also has the effect of changing pretty much every codon after that altered 4th codon. This, in turn, yields a very different sequence of amino acids than the original, unmutated sequence. The red-colored AAs are ones which don't occur at all in the original, unmutated sequence:
alanine, tyrosine, arginine, aspartic acid, valine, glycine, threonine, leucine, arginine, methionine, alanine, phenylalanine, leucine, threonine, isoleucine, leucine, arginine, isoleucine, [end], alanine, glutamine, histidine, histidine, serine, arginine, leucine, arginine, glutamic acid, valine, proline, serine, glutamine, tyrosine, isoleucine, serine, serine, alanine, proline, histidine, leucine, glutamine, alanine, histidine, alanine, serine, arginine, histidine, leucine, glycine, [???]
Does the mutated nucleotide sequence qualify as "new and novel genetic material"? Does the mutated nucleotide sequence contain any "new and novel genetic material"?
| Quote | | So when you use a single symbol mutation to try and demonstrate how an entire program could arise, you have missed the mark by a catastrophic proportion. |
That may be so, cryptoguru. However, I, at least, have not "use[d] a single symbol mutation to try and demonstrate how an entire program could arise"; rather, I have been asking questions with the intent of getting you to explain what the heck you mean.
| Quote | | Let me expose your argument with a similar analogy… |
BZZT! Wrong. I'm not making an argument at all, cryptoguru. I am, instead, asking you to explain what the heck you mean. It's unclear whether you intend to do so any time in the foreseeable future, but that's okay; for my purposes, a Creationist who replies to cogent questions with diversionary bafflegab is as good as a Creationist who actually answers cogent questions.
|
