• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Oh God, here we go again - micro/macro evolution

Wowbagger said:
And, as dogjones sort-of points out: The holes in the sponge might not be so random. Some arrangements could be more efficient at absorption than others, and the optimum arragement might even be different for different substances.
Click to expand...

True enough, but just the same, there isn't a whole lot of information there--once you specify a distribution of hole sizes and such, the exact arrangement doesn't matter.

Wowbagger said:
If, for some reason, it ever became useful to store the holes in a sponge as information, for humans we would ("Sponginformatics"?).
Click to expand...

Indeed. In fact, there are storage schemes that essentially store bits by making holes in a malleable substance. But again, that information is (almost) independent of it being a sponge. Yes, if we decided to store all zeroes and ended up with a hole-free sponge, that would make for an impractical sponge. For a wide range of inputs, though, its sponginess would be unaffected.

Wowbagger said:
(Though, the whole point of my exercise is to show that it is not the only way to view DNA.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I just had a minor quibble with your original wording. I think "DNS stores information" is more than just an analogy--at least if "information" is something real in the first place. You're right that it's not the whole story, but just the same DNA largely functions as a store of digital code.

Wowbagger said:
What if the more efficient hole structure wasn't calculated by humans, but instead by computer, using an evolutionary selection algorithm... Nervermind, the IDers would probably latch on to that one, as well, claiming "the computer program was designed with that specific purpose!"
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I've had that experience already. Well, not with sponges, but little digital critters. You just can't win the argument.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
dogjones said:
I think I see the point. DNA contains information which should be thought of as only affecting itself and how it replicates. Humans/bacteria/slugs emerge from this but are not strictly the 'point' of the code.

Other things contain information, such as sponges. The random noise that the holes on a sponge code for is, in a certain sense, analogous to humans/bacteria/slugs, in that it is only emergent. The difference is that said noise doesn't feed back upon the structure/behaviour/replicability of the sponge. (Unless a certain hole structure led to a tangibly more absorbent sponge, thereby causing the manufacturer to investigate, determine this was the case and then make all of their sponges exactly the same... but IDers would probably latch on to this... the manufacturer is GOD!)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's all correct. For DNA, the transfer of information has to be quite high fidelity, since otherwise the instructions for protein construction would be useless. The same is true for, say, the designs for a computer chip. Both things contain a lot of information. But the arrangement of holes on a sponge only affect the final utility to a very minor extent, so manufacturers don't bother specifying the position of each hole. As such, it contains very little information--or very little useful information, at any rate.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
DNA largely functions as a store of digital code
Click to expand...

that would be analogue code and transfer is subject to many factors which introduce errors ( DNA has pretty strong self correcting design ).
DNA is also only part of the "species instructions" as gene expression timing can alter outcomes quite dramatically ( epigenetics ).

How this plays a role in speciation is still murky as it becomes more and more clear that environmental factors are at play even at the individual level.

http://www.citeulike.org/user/absterga/article/3787351

This might be an evolutionary "rapid response" approach when food sources or environments change rapidly ( end of an ice age for instance ).

I suspect the "changes" are far more fluid and exchanges of genetic materials ( as with bacteria ) result in more rapid speciation than we know.
Speciation is pretty much a "manufactured" marker.
 
Dr. Trintignant said:
DNA largely functions as a store of digital code.
Click to expand...

macdoc said:
that would be analogue code
Click to expand...
No, it's a digital code. A sequence of three nucleotides, each of which may have one of four possible values, specifies the code for a specific amino acid. A linear sequence of amino acids, created from a linear sequence of digital codons, specifies a protein. I don't know what the words "analogue code" could mean in this context.
 
bokonon said:
No, it's a digital code. A sequence of three nucleotides, each of which may have one of four possible values, specifies the code for a specific amino acid. A linear sequence of amino acids, created from a linear sequence of digital codons, specifies a protein. I don't know what the words "analogue code" could mean in this context.
Click to expand...

Literal copies of the proteins within the DNA would be an analog code. The chief difference between digital and analog is the fact that a digital coding can detect and sometimes correct noise added in the transmission process. The fact that DNA can self-correct is a hallmark of a digital code; in an analog code the noise cannot be detected (let alone corrected) once it has been added.
 
shadron said:
Literal copies of the proteins within the DNA would be an analog code. The chief difference between digital and analog is the fact that a digital coding can detect and sometimes correct noise added in the transmission process. The fact that DNA can self-correct is a hallmark of a digital code; in an analog code the noise cannot be detected (let alone corrected) once it has been added.
Click to expand...
Unless you know something about the analog code, in which case you could apply certain kinds of error correction such as noise reduction.

I'm tempted to call transcription/translation an analog process, simply because it is entirely chemical. The fact that it looks digital is just because we think of that sort of process as a digital one.

But I'm not that tempted.

~~ Paul
 
shadron said:
At the level of the semi-educated layman (no slur intended), the evidence and non-evidence all boil down to "Who do you believe?" Appeal to authority is all you have, because the basis for understanding anything deeper is simply not there. Most people (yea, even most people here, including yours truly) depend upon authority for their stands on almost anything that is not in their specialty, if they have one.

So, you are faced with resolving an argument over physical biology held between the majority of biological scientists and that held by evangelistic churchman and a very thin veneer of biologists. Which expert are you going to choose from? Because that is the decision.

It's either that or get more educated, both of you.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's quite right. We both acknowledge this. I try and educate myself by lurking here / reading books etc but unfortunately bills beckon, women need attention, plays need acting in and fish need killing.
 
Damien Evans said:
And now for my nitpicks!

1. It should be Homo Neanderthalensis, not Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis.
2. The Dmanisi cranium isn't Homo Erectus, it's Homo Georgicus. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Homo_georgicus
3. Ergaster isn't "early erectus", indeed given all Ergaster bones have been found in Africa and the near east and all definitively Erectus bones (that is, those whose species is not in dispute) come from East Asia it's difficult to see how this idea even came to exist.

None of which changes the substance of anything you were saying, I was just in a nitpicky mood.:D
Click to expand...

More nitpicking!!!

The legend for the photos is taken directly from Theobald's original page which I just checked and it looks like it hasn't been updated since 2000 which would explain the Neanderthal and Dmanisi comments. Interestingly, I also checked the Smithsonian's Hall of Human ancestors page (where Theobald got the skull photos from) and Dmanisi isn't even listed!

And as far as I know, while there still is some controversy over the exact relationship and line of descent for ergaster/erectus, ergaster finds are over 1 million years old. But as I noted the comments are from 2000 and don't appear to have been updated.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Unless you know something about the analog code, in which case you could apply certain kinds of error correction such as noise reduction.

I'm tempted to call transcription/translation an analog process, simply because it is entirely chemical. The fact that it looks digital is just because we think of that sort of process as a digital one.

But I'm not that tempted.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Meh. I had a HIFidiot tell me that digital audio was also analog because the digital signals were represented by an analog value.

What defines a signal as digital is that the input can only be interpreted as one of a limited number of states (but it may be more than two). A nucleotide in DNA is either transferred as the same one, or another. It cannot be half right. Therefore it is digital.

Hans
 
You need to get your friend to define exactly where he draws the line between micro- and macro-evolution.

If you get an acceptable answer to that question (if he uses the word "kind" in his answer, it is not acceptable) the next step should be to have him explain what this "barrier" that doesn't allow for macro-evolution to happen is.

I have seen many discussions on evolution. When creationists or ID-proponents are asked about this magical barrier they never come up with an answer, never.
 
Last edited:
Leviath said:
You need to get your friend to define exactly where he draws the line between micro- and macro-evolution.

If you get an acceptable answer to that question (if he uses the word "kind" in his answer, it is not acceptable) the next step should be to have him explain what this "barrier" that doesn't allow for macro-evolution to happen is.

I have seen many discussions on evolution. When creationists or ID-proponents are asked about this magical barrier they never come up with an answer, never.
Click to expand...
Quite right. The creationist claim is that we have never observed speciation. And their definition of speciation is that which we have never observed.

Hans
 
MRC Hans said:
What defines a signal as digital is that the input can only be interpreted as one of a limited number of states (but it may be more than two). A nucleotide in DNA is either transferred as the same one, or another. It cannot be half right. Therefore it is digital.
Click to expand...
I'll play Devil's Advocate here, because I agree that the code is conceptually digital since there is a mapping from codons to amino acids.

There is no digital circuitry processing the genetic code. Translation and transcription mistakes are made all the time. The only reason translation operates more or less digitally and accurately is because there are a limited number of chemicals available to interact with the ribosome. If there were 100 more chemicals that behaved like aminoacyl tRNAs, they too would participate in the translation and produce a range of worthless proteins. Evolution keeps them away.

Of course, another idea is to say that all of chemistry is digital, since quantum mechanics permits only a limited number of states. Should we call the bonding of atoms a digital process?

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom