OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 05:31:55 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can information be randomly produced?  (Read 607 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« on: October 11, 2010, 10:23:30 AM »

There is a awful lot of talk about the validity of evolution. However, ultimately, you must answer the question on the origin of the first cell. Athiest often stand with the random creation of desire molecules which align to create cell functions and eventually cells. If this is not your preferred method, you still have the same problem:

     Where did the information come from?

That is, the information that governs the function of various cells to not only govern the cell, but for more complex organism, create the overall organism.

It has been shown(tested) that information between species is not different. Instead, the differences are when the information is activated creating the functionary part of the organism (tail, beak, etc). That stiill leaves the original question. Because in nature, information can be destroyed or lost, it can be exchanged, or manipulated (note the previous change in function of the info.). However, it still cannot be randomly (instantly or sporaticly) created. 

This link will serve a point: http://www.randommutation.com/

On that site you can test the random mutation's inability to create new information randomly. You'll start with "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". The ability to change from this sentence to another is astronomically improbable. Also, remember, whenever a change results in a word being unreadable, that gene would be rejected. Some people think the change would be a word for a new word, but this sentence is much simpler than any genome, and real mutations are through manipulations of the original code.

     So my second point is, if information mutation from one species to another is this improbable, show how that information ever originally combined into its original form. 
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,772



« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2010, 01:14:01 PM »

This link will serve a point: http://www.randommutation.com/

Which point would that be, exactly? Proving that creationists/IDers don't know what they're talking about? Even if you don't see the problems with the site, a simple Google search will clear everything up for you.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2010, 05:50:35 PM »

This link will serve a point: http://www.randommutation.com/

Which point would that be, exactly? Proving that creationists/IDers don't know what they're talking about? Even if you don't see the problems with the site, a simple Google search will clear everything up for you.

I was hoping for a discussion with you, not with google. Can you discuss it, or is that just dismissal without argument?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2010, 06:41:56 PM »

Beyond magnificent, yet baseless, "everyone knows that's wrong" accusations, I'll continue.

Quote
Since nature cannot tell the difference between two meaningless genetic sequences, it cannot select between them, making natural selection blind to such neutral changes. Since there are no recognizable "stepping stones" close by, all that nature has left, to find new beneficial sequences, is a blind random walk through enormous piles of junk sequences. Of course, this random, curvy walk takes a lot longer than a direct walk would take, and the time involved increases  exponentially with each increase in the minimum sequence and specificity requirements for a particular function. Random selection of sequences within sequence space starting from a beneficial island (like throwing darts at a dartboard) has no statistical advantage when it comes to finding novel beneficial sequences over neutral random walk.  This prediction is reflected in real life by an exponential decline in the ability of mindless evolutionary processes to evolve anything beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity.

Many simple functions, such as de novo antibiotic resistance, are easy to evolve for any bacterial colony in short order. Moving up a level of complexity, there are far fewer examples of single protein enzymes evolving where a few hundred amino acids at minimum are required to work together at the same time (and many types of bacteria cannot evolve even at this level). However, there are absolutely no examples in the scientific literature of any function requiring more than a thousand or so amino acids working at the same time (as in the simplest bacterial motility system) ever evolving - period. The beneficial "steppingstones" are just too far apart due to all the junk that separates the few beneficial islands of function from every other island in the vast universe of junk sequences at such levels of informational complexity. The average time needed to randomly sort through enough junk sequences to find any other beneficial function at such a level of complexity quickly works its way into trillions upon trillions of years ” even for an enormous population of bacteria (all the bacteria on Earth: ~1e30) with a high mutation rate (one mutation per 100,000 base pairs per individual every 20 minutes).

At this point the mindless processes of evolution simply become untenable as any sort of viable explanation for the high levels of diverse complexity that we see within all living things. The only process left that is known to give rise to functional systems at comparable levels of complexity involves human intelligence or beyond. No lesser intelligence, and certainly no other known mindless processes, have ever come close to producing something like the informational complexity found in the simplest bacterial motility system.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2010, 10:25:28 PM »

There is a awful lot of talk about the validity of evolution. However, ultimately, you must answer the question on the origin of the first cell. Athiest often stand with the random creation of desire molecules which align to create cell functions and eventually cells. If this is not your preferred method, you still have the same problem:

     Where did the information come from?

That is, the information that governs the function of various cells to not only govern the cell, but for more complex organism, create the overall organism.

It has been shown(tested) that information between species is not different. Instead, the differences are when the information is activated creating the functionary part of the organism (tail, beak, etc). That stiill leaves the original question. Because in nature, information can be destroyed or lost, it can be exchanged, or manipulated (note the previous change in function of the info.). However, it still cannot be randomly (instantly or sporaticly) created. 

This link will serve a point: http://www.randommutation.com/

On that site you can test the random mutation's inability to create new information randomly. You'll start with "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". The ability to change from this sentence to another is astronomically improbable. Also, remember, whenever a change results in a word being unreadable, that gene would be rejected. Some people think the change would be a word for a new word, but this sentence is much simpler than any genome, and real mutations are through manipulations of the original code.

     So my second point is, if information mutation from one species to another is this improbable, show how that information ever originally combined into its original form. 

Dear Azurestone,

Having read this a number of times, I am still unclear what you are asking. If you are asking if random mutations can logically lead to a bacterium-like cell with a DNA replication apparatus, protein synthesis apparatus and a transcription apparatus (synthesizing RNA), all protected within some form of a protective lipid membrane or cell wall, my guess would be no. I have thought about this a long time and my conclusion is that if there is water, there is life, is essentially a religion. The notions of an existence of  an RNA world, ignores the fact that RNA is too unstable (RNA will degrade faster than it can possibly replicate to contain useful information).  Leslie Orgel suggested an RNA (ribose nucleic acid) world was preceded by a more stable hexose nucleic acid world, but the time requirements of the transition from hexose to ribose is problematical. Others have suggested that certain clays (rocks) could protect the RNA, but the problem here is that in doing so, would decrease the rate of reactions and chemical changes necessary to create life.

In regard to random changes creating new proteins with new activities, yes, that is a fact. There is no doubt about that. In your examples, you completely ignore gene duplication (either due to replication or viral infections-of the retrotransposon-retrovirus types) that can silently evolve to a new enzymatic activity without affecting the activity of the gene that was duplicated. What is missing from your random mutagenesis web site is selective pressure. A powerful tool of scientists and the pharmaceutical industry is SELEX (Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential Enrichment) which is essentially a more rapid form of evolution done in vitro with a selection process. To deny the benefits of random differences between proteins is to deny the benefits of your own antibodies to combat new viruses.

I tend to have little time to post. But I will try if you respond if requested.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2010, 11:10:57 PM »

Dear Azurestone,

Having read this a number of times, I am still unclear what you are asking. If you are asking if random mutations can logically lead to a bacterium-like cell with a DNA replication apparatus, protein synthesis apparatus and a transcription apparatus (synthesizing RNA), all protected within some form of a protective lipid membrane or cell wall, my guess would be no. I have thought about this a long time and my conclusion is that if there is water, there is life, is essentially a religion. The notions of an existence of  an RNA world, ignores the fact that RNA is too unstable (RNA will degrade faster than it can possibly replicate to contain useful information).  Leslie Orgel suggested an RNA (ribose nucleic acid) world was preceded by a more stable hexose nucleic acid world, but the time requirements of the transition from hexose to ribose is problematical. Others have suggested that certain clays (rocks) could protect the RNA, but the problem here is that in doing so, would decrease the rate of reactions and chemical changes necessary to create life.

This is one of the points I'm trying to make. That is, the ability (or in ability) for proteins to coalesce into a more complex system.

In regard to random changes creating new proteins with new activities, yes, that is a fact. There is no doubt about that. In your examples, you completely ignore gene duplication (either due to replication or viral infections-of the retrotransposon-retrovirus types) that can silently evolve to a new enzymatic activity without affecting the activity of the gene that was duplicated. What is missing from your random mutagenesis web site is selective pressure. A powerful tool of scientists and the pharmaceutical industry is SELEX (Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential Enrichment) which is essentially a more rapid form of evolution done in vitro with a selection process. To deny the benefits of random differences between proteins is to deny the benefits of your own antibodies to combat new viruses.

I agree that mutations do happen in nature, and tried to include a short acknowledgment in my latter post. And, I agree that on the small scale evolution does occur (changes to protiens, combination of protiens, etc.), and has been proven on the macro level to be primarily the reshuffling of genomes and/or the timing/duration/actuation of genomes within a sequence.

My real point is that, despite the ability to remove, change, or shuffle the information and have this information succeed based upon environmental factors, the ability for new information to be created 'ex nihilo' is nonexistent. 
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2010, 11:37:27 PM »

This link will serve a point: http://www.randommutation.com/

On that site you can test the random mutation's inability to create new information randomly. You'll start with "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". The ability to change from this sentence to another is astronomically improbable.

This is not however true of the genetic code. For humans, only three of the sixty-four possible trimers results in a "stop" coding., and many changes in the third base do not result in expression of a different amino acid. (See the attached for a handy diagram.) Other changes may not result in significant chemical changes or may result in slight conformal changes which enhance or diminish the effect of the resulting protein.

Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2010, 12:03:27 AM »

Hi Azurestone,

I was reading the Nature article that is the basis of your other thread: Perspectives Nature Reviews Cancer 10, 728-733
Science and society: Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between? A. Rosalie David & Michael R. Zimmerman.
It is an opinion piece rather than a peer reviewed article, but interesting nevertheless. It is late so I will not finish it this evening.

In regard to this thread, I just want to emphasize that I cannot get my head around how life could be created from random processes (not that it could not occur, since trying to prove a negative is folly). However, once you have a cellular environment, a DNA replication machinery, a protein synthesis machinery, a transcription machinery, etc., entirely new activities can and do evolve into existence due to random changes. And despite the novelty of the activities that arises, the framework, in terms of a protein's secondary and tertiary structure, remains a variation on a theme present in other proteins, despite having a totally unrelated amino acid sequence.

Best wishes,
,
Dear Azurestone,

Having read this a number of times, I am still unclear what you are asking. If you are asking if random mutations can logically lead to a bacterium-like cell with a DNA replication apparatus, protein synthesis apparatus and a transcription apparatus (synthesizing RNA), all protected within some form of a protective lipid membrane or cell wall, my guess would be no. I have thought about this a long time and my conclusion is that if there is water, there is life, is essentially a religion. The notions of an existence of  an RNA world, ignores the fact that RNA is too unstable (RNA will degrade faster than it can possibly replicate to contain useful information).  Leslie Orgel suggested an RNA (ribose nucleic acid) world was preceded by a more stable hexose nucleic acid world, but the time requirements of the transition from hexose to ribose is problematical. Others have suggested that certain clays (rocks) could protect the RNA, but the problem here is that in doing so, would decrease the rate of reactions and chemical changes necessary to create life.

This is one of the points I'm trying to make. That is, the ability (or in ability) for proteins to coalesce into a more complex system.

In regard to random changes creating new proteins with new activities, yes, that is a fact. There is no doubt about that. In your examples, you completely ignore gene duplication (either due to replication or viral infections-of the retrotransposon-retrovirus types) that can silently evolve to a new enzymatic activity without affecting the activity of the gene that was duplicated. What is missing from your random mutagenesis web site is selective pressure. A powerful tool of scientists and the pharmaceutical industry is SELEX (Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential Enrichment) which is essentially a more rapid form of evolution done in vitro with a selection process. To deny the benefits of random differences between proteins is to deny the benefits of your own antibodies to combat new viruses.

I agree that mutations do happen in nature, and tried to include a short acknowledgment in my latter post. And, I agree that on the small scale evolution does occur (changes to protiens, combination of protiens, etc.), and has been proven on the macro level to be primarily the reshuffling of genomes and/or the timing/duration/actuation of genomes within a sequence.

My real point is that, despite the ability to remove, change, or shuffle the information and have this information succeed based upon environmental factors, the ability for new information to be created 'ex nihilo' is nonexistent. 
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2010, 12:52:24 AM »

This link will serve a point: http://www.randommutation.com/

On that site you can test the random mutation's inability to create new information randomly. You'll start with "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". The ability to change from this sentence to another is astronomically improbable.

This is not however true of the genetic code. For humans, only three of the sixty-four possible trimers results in a "stop" coding., and many changes in the third base do not result in expression of a different amino acid. (See the attached for a handy diagram.)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The three 'termination codons' (amber, ochre, and opa; whose actual composition differs between RNA and DNA) will provide a 'period' or 'end translation' and release of the new amino acid. If changes are made to say the DNA information, at worst a 'nonsense codon' (nonsense mutation) will be produced initiating a premature 'end translation', or perhaps a 'missense mutation' resulting in a possible substitution by a different amino acid. Likely result of which is a genetic disorder from the mutation (assuming mass reproduction throughout the organism), that is if the mutation doesn't result in a complete termination.

All of which isn't really my point. I acknowledge micro-level mutations and changes among organisms. (See previous post)

Other changes may not result in significant chemical changes or may result in slight conformal changes which enhance or diminish the effect of the resulting protein.

The point is, moving from one protein to a new one requires large scale probability. And that's just changing a protein. Try to develop a brand new bacterium from scratch. To start, it would require more than a thousand or so amino acids working at the same time to evolve. That's not just improbable, it's impossible. My overarching point is that new information cannot be randomly created. It may be manipulated, but it requires another intelligence to create information.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tags: evolution intelligent design creation 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.071 seconds with 36 queries.