[_ Old Earth _] Information: What Does It Mean to Evolution?

[Vaccine]

I'm still skeptical that he said that any species remained unchanged since the Cambrian. Show us that.

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; -Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.


Here are some annelids from pre-cambrian, which still look the same today.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Cambrian-Explosion/Annelid2/Annelida-L.jpg

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Lebanese-Lagerstatt/Annelida/Polychaetes-L.jpg


Here is a brachiopod from the cambrian, which still look the same today.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/house.html

Here is a starfish from (supposedly) 420 million years ago, which still look the same today.
http://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/infosheets/marine-fossils/echinoderms/

Definition of programming language:
"programming language is an artificial language designed to communicate instructions to a machine, particularly a computer. Programming languages can be used to create programs that control the behavior of a machine and/or to express algorithms precisely."

Sure we can simulate evolutionary processes by programming with computer languages. But the languages themselves don't mutate; they just simulate what goes on in nature. They are called "genetic algorithms" and they don't mutate.

Microsoft is going to run, not simulate, their sequences within a cell to simulate circuits. That the genetic code is a programming language is what makes nanotec possible.

ENCODE showed 80% were reliably transcribed, meaning not by accident.

That's not what the ENCODE researchers said. That was the ICR's own revision of what the research showed.

We've already refuted that one. Even if the ICR thinks ENCODE was wrong, they still are dishonest when they change the story and pretend ENCODE said it.

Nobody refuted it, people disagreed with it is all.
These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html


ENCODE did the research and provided this data analysis:
These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
I'm still skeptical that he said that any species remained unchanged since the Cambrian. Show us that.

(Gould quote-mining on statis)

That doesn't support your claim.

Here are some annelids from pre-cambrian, which still look the same today.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Cambrian...Annelida-L.jpg

They are completely different species. They look something like living annelids. But modern annelids like those ancient ones don't exist.

"Looks like" isn't going to work. Show us a species from 500 million years ago, that exists today. Name it and show your evidence.

Definition of programming language:
"programming language is an artificial language designed to communicate instructions to a machine, particularly a computer. Programming languages can be used to create programs that control the behavior of a machine and/or to express algorithms precisely."

Sure we can simulate evolutionary processes by programming with computer languages. But the languages themselves don't mutate; they just simulate what goes on in nature. They are called "genetic algorithms" and they don't mutate.

Microsoft is going to run, not simulate, their sequences within a cell to simulate circuits. That the genetic code is a programming language is what makes nanotec possible.

That doesn't address the problem you have with programming languages. They can simulate evolution by deterministic means, but they don't evolve.

ENCODE showed 80% were reliably transcribed, meaning not by accident.

That's not what the ENCODE researchers said. That was the ICR's own revision of what the research showed.

We've already refuted that one. Even if the ICR thinks ENCODE was wrong, they still are dishonest when they change the story and pretend ENCODE said it.

Nobody refuted it, people disagreed with it is all.

You saw that the ICR statement was not an honest representation of what the ENCODE researchers said. Do we have to go back and show where I showed this to you the first time?

 

[Vaccine]

View attachment 3517View attachment 3518

One of those is (supposedly) 420 million years old and the other is a modern starfish. Not much change.


But back to the topic of information, I still think information is immaterial, that it is not intrinsically linked to DNA. The information in a book is not linked to the ink and paper but information is expressed with ink and paper. Genetic information isn't Deoxyribonucleic acid, genetic information is expressed with
Deoxyribonucleic acid. Shannon's theory treats a gene as a chunk of information that can be molded like clay. Science has learned it's the sequence that contains information. In that respect it is a programming language similar to binary code. A gene can't be altered like clay, just the same as than the data on a HDD couldn't be.

 

[Barbarian]

One of those is (supposedly) 420 million years old and the other is a modern starfish. Not much change.

I'm not an expert on echinoderms, and I can see that they are very different, even in superficial anatomy. It's like saying a lion is identical to a dinosaur, because they both have a head, a tail, and four feet. C'mon. Let's see one that didn't change.

But back to the topic of information, I still think information is immaterial, that it is not intrinsically linked to DNA.

In the sense that information is immaterial to broadcasters. Information is not intrinsically linked to radio waves.

The information in a book is not linked to the ink and paper but information is expressed with ink and paper. Genetic information isn't Deoxyribonucleic acid, genetic information is expressed withDeoxyribonucleic acid.

Turns out the information content of DNA in a population is measurable by the same methodology that measures information in a telephone transmission. Inforamation is context-independent.

Shannon's theory treats a gene as a chunk of information that can be molded like clay.

No. If you believe that, you don't know the first thing about information.

Science has learned it's the sequence that contains information.

Same thing in radio waves, populations, newspapers, forests, etc. If you don't get this, information is a complete mystery to you. Shannon's breakthrough showed us now it works, and more importantly, showed us how to use it. The reason scientists go with Shannon's idea is simple; it works. They don't go with various other ideas because they don't work. No point in complaining; that's how things work.

In that respect it is a programming language similar to binary code.

No. A programming language can carry information, but it isn't information.

 

[Sparkey]

In celebration of ITLAP: "Ahoy, matey! May da warm south'n breeze fill yer sails 'dis day."

Measurement of biological information with applications from genes to landscapes. Molecular Ecology (2006)
Volume: 15, Issue: 10, Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell, Pages: 2857-2869
ABSTRACT:
Pardon me winded discussion laddie, but dis har ship be setti'n course fer biological darvercity, err, I means ta say, biological diversity an' how it be quantified fer reasons rangin' from primer design, to bioprospectin', 'n community ecology.

Even me parrot can tell ya tha' as a common index fer all levels, we, from bow to stern, suggest Cap'n Shannon's (S)H, has already used in information theory 'n biodiversity 'o ecological communities. Since First Matey Lewontin's first use 'o 'tis index to describe human genetic variation, it has be used fer variation 'o viruses, splice-junctions, 'n informativeness 'o pedigrees an for oth'r stuffs and such da like. However, 'til now thar has be no theory to predict expected values 'o 'tis index under given genetic 'n demographic conditions. Read below ships ta knows ya some more as yer Cap'n shall learn ya true:

We present a new null theory fer (S)H at th' genetic level, 'n show that 'tis index has advantages includin'

1. independence 'o measures at each hierarchical level 'o organization;
2. robust estimation 'o genetic exchange over a wide range 'o conditions;
3. ability to incorporate information on population size; 'n
4. explicit relationship to standard statistical tests. Utilization 'o 'tis index in conjunction wit' other existin' indices offers powerful insights into genetic processes.

Our genetic theory be also extendible to th' ecological community level beyond ta norm'l seas we sail, 'n thus can aid th' comparison 'n integration 'o diversity at th' genetic 'n community levels, includin' th' need fer measures 'o community diversity from near to far that incorporate th' genetic differentiation between all dem dar species.

Piratized by Cap'n Sapprow on this the ITLAP day (International Talk Like a Pirate Day)

Now thar be a sail full for ya, matey. Thar she blows!

 

[Vaccine]

:toofunny [MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION]

Arr matey, I could barely get through that I was laughin' so hard. Pure genius sparrow.