Razotkrivanje najvece lazi u istoriji covecanstva

[Sudija]

Kako nastaju nove informacije u DNA genomu?

Pročitaj Senkin post po tom pitanju  .smesko.

[Срђан Шијакињић]

Ја када се не разумем добро у одређену област (као што се не разумем у биологију и генетику), а у тој области има више праваца мишљења (као за и портив ТЕ у биологији), као један од начина да изградим неки став је то што погледам да ли има и колико озбиљних и кредибилних научника који заступају једну и другу страну. Колико ја знам, ТЕ је у научним круговима прихваћена без дилеме, и нема - опет колико је мени познато - признатих научника (који су репутацију изградили и изван саме спорне расправе о еволуцији) који се не слажу. Ако има молио бих неко да изнесе који су, а ако нема онда ми то делује као још један од јачих аргумента про ТЕ. 

[Млађони]

Kako nastaju nove informacije u DNA genomu?

 

Na dugme.

[Justin Waters]

Žao mi je što si se osetio isprovociranim,to mi nije bila namera ali ti isto tako ne mogu zabranti da se osetiš isprovociranim,ugroženim,pametnim,itd.Svako ima pravo na svoju zabludu. .smesko.

Za mene ste neznalice vi,jer tamo gde vam nedostaju činjenice to nadoknađujete uvredama,podcenjivanjem i jeftinom demagogijom.

To što ste se vi "ubili" da objasnite nekom nešto ne pokazuje naučnu vrednost i istinitost vaših tvrdnji jer vam je znanje ograničeno a stav vrlo loš,a zaboravljaš da se i druga strana"ubila" da vama objasni da  ste vi neznalice i demagozi.

Kako se usuđuješ da podcenjuješ tuđe vreme provedeno na ovoj temi i da veličaš samo vaše vreme tj. samo to što ste se VI "ubili" da ovde nakucate gomilu gluposti.I druga strana je takođe uložila i vreme i znanje da objasni vama da vi niste u pravu i to smislenije i na višem naučnom nivou nego vi banana-teoretičari.

 

Ma opusteno samo sa izrekao istinu, kakva provokacija. 

 

Vidi vrati se unazad, da ne ponavljam ono s mozgom, pa citaj i vidi ko se saltao sa teme na temu, i ko je bjezao da se suoci sa cinjenicama. 

 

Od mene dosta na tvoje trolovanje. 

[Justin Waters]

Ја када се не разумем добро у одређену област (као што се не разумем у биологију и генетику), а у тој области има више праваца мишљења (као за и портив ТЕ у биологији), као један од начина да изградим неки став је то што погледам да ли има и колико озбиљних и кредибилних научника који заступају једну и другу страну. Колико ја знам, ТЕ је у научним круговима прихваћена без дилеме, и нема - опет колико је мени познато - признатих научника (који су репутацију изградили и изван саме спорне расправе о еволуцији) који се не слажу. Ако има молио бих неко да изнесе који су, а ако нема онда ми то делује као још један од јачих аргумента про ТЕ. 

 

Nista svi su oni neznalice, potplaceni od iluminata da uniste vjeru u Boga. 

[Avocado]

Da vidim samo ako moze neki link vezano za krokodila da je mutacijom dobio ostar zub. Na kom genu se navodno desila ta mutacija, i ako se desila najverovatnije u pitanju gubitak originalne informacije.

 

Zub sam navodio kao hipotetički primer...

 

Izvoli link za posmatrane mutacije sa "dodavanjem informacija" (tvrdnje su potkrepljene referencama ka naučnim radovima):

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[Sudija]

 

Vidi vrati se unazad, da ne ponavljam ono s mozgom, pa citaj i vidi ko se saltao sa teme na temu, i ko je bjezao da se suoci sa cinjenicama. 

Takođe!

Neko je odlazio sa teme na drugu temu ili trenutno napustio raspravu u momentima kada si TI mislio da ne treba i ti to tumačiš kao neku slabost sagovornika ili slabost onoga što je rekao ? 0102_laugh

Kako je smeo da ode na drugu temu da te ne pita za dozvolu?Možda čoveka interesuje i neka druga tema,možda mu se spava jer radi sutra,možda je gladan ili mu je bolestan roditelj,to nisi pomislio,ne?Koliko si egocentričan,pa to je strašno.

 

Od mene dosta na tvoje trolovanje. 

 

U mojim postovima nema trolovanja,to je svakom moderatoru sa imalo mozga jasno.A ti si izgleda podložan sugestijama drugih čim si prihvatio avokadovu sugestiju(zdravo za gotovo) da ja nešto trolujem,pri tom ne ukljušivši svoj mozak. :rolleyes:

 

 

Verovatno ti avokado,kao alfa mužijak-predvodnik u čoporu ateista na ŽRU, šalje i pp poruke sa uputstvima. .smesko.

 

E,ovo je trolovanje,čisto da znaš za ubuduće greengrin

[Avocado]

[Млађони]

 

 

Verovatno ti avokado,kao alfa mužijak-predvodnik u čoporu ateista na ŽRU, šalje i pp poruke sa uputstvima.

 

1. Justinijan covek nije ateista.

 

2. Ne postoji copora ateista, postoji copor ujedinjenih iluminati-kokakolichara. Avocado je prvoizabrani svestenik, a vodja i visoki shaman je Aquilius. Justinijan se probija u rankovima tu je u mrtvoj trci za sekretara predsoblja sa aurorom. Posto je visoki saman pravoslavac, vece sanse ima justa da postane sekretar predsoblja, pa ti vidi sa kim se zezas. 

[Sir Oliver]

Баш сви ?  И племенити метали ? 

 

На основу чега се дошло до тога ? Постоје ли неки докази или се ради само о хипотези ?

просто хемија, чак и без звезда сви елементи теже да се претворе у гвожђе наравно и племенити метали, једино што је за то потребно милијарде година.

[Odahviing]

просто хемија, чак и без звезда сви елементи теже да се претворе у гвожђе наравно и племенити метали, једино што је за то потребно милијарде година.

E a šta je sa ovim stabilnim izotopima, jesu li oni potpuno stabilni ili je za njihovo raspadanje potrebno miliardi godina da prođe, pa se zbog toga nazivaju stabilnim?

Ovo mi nije bilo jasno pa nisam hteo da lupam u prethodnom komentaru mnogo

[Sir Oliver]

E a šta je sa ovim stabilnim izotopima, jesu li oni potpuno stabilni ili je za njihovo raspadanje potrebno miliardi godina da prođe, pa se zbog toga nazivaju stabilnim?

Ovo mi nije bilo jasno pa nisam hteo da lupam u prethodnom komentaru mnogo

a moraćeš objašnjenje potražiti na drugoj strani jer ja sam samo sitni lopov...

u principu nema stabilnih elemenata osim gvožđa, ono je u sredini periodnog sistema i ima idealnu konfiguraciju -  jedino što će se sve to dogoditi dugo već kad svemir bude mrtav - to je možda zadnja promena.

[grigorije22]

Zavisi od toga šta podrazumevaš pod "novim informacijama"...

Nastanak novih hemijskih slova, rekombinacija postojecih informacija ako se promeni jedno hemijsko slovo na koji nacin se menja

i da li takva informacija sada ima drugo znacenje?

[grigorije22]

The Gitt theory of information

In his book In the Beginning was Information, Gitt did not apply his analysis to biology in any detail, so I will here explain it by applying it to biological information and to information as expressed in the English language. The genetic code consists of four bases (the genetic alphabet) taken three at a time (the genetic words). The four bases are guanine (G), adenine (A), cytosine © and uracil (U).¹⁸ Four bases taken three at a time yield 64 possible three-letter genetic words (there are no one-, two-or four-letter genetic words). There are twenty amino acids and each three-letter ‘codon’ (word) represents one amino acid or a ‘stop’ or ‘start’ sign. Several different codons can represent the same amino acid (since 64 is greater than 20) but each codon represents only one amino acid. For example, GCA, GCC, GCG and GCU all represent alanine, and UAA, UAG and UGA all represent the ‘stop’ sign, but AUG alone represents methionine.

Let’s now consider some three-letter English words for comparison. Cat, mat, bat, hat, fly and sky are all three-letter English words that carry approximately similar Shannon-type statistical information content. Yet we all know that these words carry much more information than just the statistical properties of their letter frequencies. The most obvious extra dimension is their semantic content. ‘Cat’ represents a furry, four-legged mammal, ‘bat’ represents a flying mammal, ‘hat’ is a shading device placed on human heads, etc. In an exactly parallel fashion, the genetic codons UUU and CGA have semantic content as well—the former represents the amino acid phenylalanine, and the latter represents arginine.

The next dimension of information is syntax—the place value or ordering rules of the words. The English sentence ‘A bat can fly in the sky’ is meaningful, but ‘The sky can fly in a bat’ is not. Likewise, syntax is a component of the meaning of genetic words. For example, the correct sequence of amino acids in the enzyme hexosaminidase A can produce a healthy human child, but a single error in that sequence can produce a child with the fatal Tay Sachs disease.

A fourth dimension of information is pragmatics—the practical functionality of words. For example, ‘a bat can fly in the sky’ is a statement about the capability of bats. This statement could have a practical application in a children’s book, for example, to teach children about the world around them. Information always has some practical application; it does not just float around in the air waiting for somewhere to settle and become meaningful. In an exactly parallel way, the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase A has a practical function in preventing the abnormal build-up of fatty substances in human brain cells.

The fifth dimension of information is apobetics (teleology or teleonomy)—the overall purpose for which a particular word sequence is produced. In the case of the children’s book cited above, the overall purpose is that parents want their children to learn about the world around them so that they will grow up to be good citizens (and perhaps look after their parents in their old age). In the case of the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase A, the overall purpose is to produce a viable human being capable of worshipping God and having offspring. Failure to achieve this purpose will lead to clogging of brain cells with fatty ganglioside molecules, consequent degeneration of the brain, and death in infancy.

We can now see that Shannon’s statistical approach to information ignores all four of these ‘extra’ dimensions of information. The reason is quite straightforward—Shannon was originally interested in quantifying the concept of information, and there is no easy way to quantify semantics, syntax, pragmatics or apobetics. They are no less real, however, and this is the challenge that creationists face. We cannot simply say, as Shannon did, that ‘[the] semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem’. They are certainly not irrelevant to the biological problem.

The higher dimensions of biological information

 

But no biologically realistic worldview can develop without addressing this question, because it is here that we find ‘meaning’, ‘order’, ‘practical application’ and ‘purpose’.

 

Fifty years of molecular biology have produced enormous advances in knowledge, but you won’t find any discussion about these ‘extra’ dimensions of biological information in any standard textbook on biology. No doubt, progress could continue without ever addressing the issue. But no biologically realistic worldview can develop without addressing this question, because it is here that we find ‘meaning’, ‘order’, ‘practical application’ and ‘purpose’. To incorporate these extra dimensions into our understanding of biology, we first need to know more about them.

Semantics

The essence of semantics is symbolism. The English word ‘cat’ has no statistical, alphabetical or biological relationship with the furry mammal that it refers to. The relationship is purely arbitrary. The equivalent (and different) words in Russian, Chinese and Arabic are entirely as satisfactory for the intended purpose as the English word. English speakers at some time in the past chose to use the word ‘cat’ and we continue to use it by convention in order to maintain effective communication. In every language the relationship between the furry mammal and the word that represents it is purely symbolic. Symbolism is an activity of the mind that does not have any physico-chemical basis in biology. A multilingual human can speak about a cat in several different languages, yet say exactly the same thing using different symbols. The mind—and nothing else—makes the connection between the words and the objects that they symbolize.

In the genetic code, the relationship between UUU and phenylalanine is likewise symbolic. There is no physicochemical or biological reason why UUU should not represent glycine, lysine or serine rather than phenylalanine. At some point, ‘someone’ made a choice and decided that UUU would represent phenylalanine. And in order to maintain effective communication between parent and daughter cells, the convention has been strictly maintained ever since. While some variations from the standard code do exist in some microbes and mitochondria, the symbolism is strictly maintained within each such lineage. Indeed, the slight variations in the code highlight the purely arbitrary nature of the relationship between codon and amino acid—the symbols can be changed!

Since semantics is based on symbolism, and symbolism is a purely mental connection between object and symbol, this may explain why evolutionary biologists have ignored the matter of the ‘extra’ levels that exist in biological information. They do not want to admit any such anthropomorphisms (or worse) into their naturalistic biology.

 

 

Syntax

The essence of syntax is structure. As already mentioned, the English sentence ‘A bat can fly in the sky’ is meaningful, but ‘The sky can fly in a bat’ is not. Word order in English is crucial to meaning. Yet the rules of English syntax are arbitrary—the rules are different in other languages. In Greek, for example, word order can be changed without changing the meaning, but different word orders will give different emphases to that same meaning.

Syntax in the genetic code is like the English language where word order is crucial to meaning. One of the smallest biologically useful protein molecules is insulin. It contains 51 amino acids. Now there are 20⁵¹ = 10⁶⁶ ways of arranging 51 amino acids into chains, but only a very small number of these are biologically useful. For example, beef insulin differs from human insulin in only two places, and pork insulin in only one place. Even fish insulin is close enough to human insulin to be effective in humans. Hexosaminidase A is about an average-sized molecule and it contains 529 amino acids. There are 20⁵²⁹ = 10⁶⁸⁸ different ways of arranging 529 amino acids into a protein chain, but just one single error in the sequence can be sufficient to produce the fatal Tay Sachs disease. Other proteins can be much larger—the muscle protein titin, for example, consists of 27,000 amino acids. The number of wrong ways in which the amino acids in these proteins could be assembled is approximately 20^27,000 = 10^35,127. So the fact that they are usually assembled in precisely the correct order, and only allow the most minute variations, testifies that cells are extremely sensitive to syntax in the genetic language.

Pragmatics

The essence of pragmatics is context. The English sentence ‘A bat can fly in the sky’ tells us something about the capabilities of the small, furry mammal (it can fly) and where it can exercise that capability (in the sky). But this sentence has no function on its own. It is entirely dependent upon the context of an English-speaking writer and/or reader to become functional. Its function is also likely to be just one component part of some larger work that describes batsin greater detail.

Just as an English sentence requires a context (writer and/or reader) to be functional, so the function of a protein molecule is entirely dependent upon the cell. Life does not exist outside of cells. Viruses are simpler than cells but they can only reproduce inside functional host cells. Some microbes can have acellular stages but they retain a full complement of cell contents and mechanisms and require a cell stage to complete their life cycle.

The biological function of a protein does not come just from its amino acid sequence, but from its three-dimensional shape. The precise amino acid sequence in a protein chain determines the ways in which it is able to fold into that three-dimensional state. The wrong amino acid in the wrong place may produce a 3-D structure that is out of shape and so fails to achieve its required function. Furthermore, other proteins, called chaperones, are necessary for the correct folding of many proteins; so the amino acid sequence only generates the correct shape in the context of a cell with chaperones. Moreover, the context within which each molecule in a cell exercises its function is extremely dynamic—the molecule must appear when and where it is needed and then disappear when and where it is not needed. If, for example, hexosaminidase A does not appear at the right time and place and/or does not function properly, then fatty ganglioside molecules build up in brain cells, causing the brain cells to degenerate and the child to die.

Apobetics

The essence of apobetics is inverse causality—present processes occur because of some future goal. All human languages have a purpose—communication between individuals. A vast range of other organisms (perhaps all organisms) also communicate in many and varied ways, and each has a purpose in doing so, but only humans use syntactic language. For example, white-tailed deer communicate alarm by flicking up their tails. The flash of the white tail has semantic content—it means danger is near. But it has no syntax capability like in the English language, where 26 letters can be combined in different ways to form hundreds of thousands of words that can be then arranged in an infinite number of ways to communicate unlimited different ideas and messages. In further contrast, apes can learn hundreds of symbols and can communicate quite a range of semantic content, and their communications also show pragmatic and apobetic content, but they have no syntax capability like humans.

The language of DNA also has purpose. The discipline of embryology would be incomprehensible without apobetics. For example, the large, bony plates on the back of the stegosaur are of no practical use to the embryo, yet the stegosaur embryo develops these plate structures. The reason it does so is for the benefit of the adult (it is currently supposed that the adult used them for temperature control). The end (the benefit to the adult) determines the means (the development in the embryo). Non-biological causality usually proceeds the other way around—the cause precedes the effect. But in biology, the effect (embryonic development) precedes the cause (the needs of the adult organism). This inverse causality is the essence of apobetics. In Part II of this paper, when we use the Gitt theory to analyze information change, we will find that apobetics is the major determinant of information change.

Applying the Gitt theory of biology

 

It is genetic engineers, not Darwinists, who are using biological information to its fullest extent.

 

It is genetic engineers, not Darwinists, who are using biological information to its fullest extent. They are the ones who look for semantic content (i.e. what protein a particular codon sequence refers to), whereas Darwinian phylogeneticists simply use the overall similarity between DNA sequences (irrespective of semantic content) to construct phylogenetic trees. Genetic engineers are the ones who are working out the syntax of genes (i.e. where they occur on the chromosomes and what their relationship is to adjacent and/or internal non-coding sequences). They are the ones discovering pragmatics (i.e. what the genes actually do). And they are the ones who are applying their knowledge to novel purposes (apobetics) such as gene therapy and improved crop production. Such an analysis of biological information is lethal to Darwinism because what Darwinists dismiss as ‘the appearance of design’ becomes ‘intelligent design’ in the hands of the genetic engineers. Yet even the genetic engineers, it seems, are mostly oblivious to the implications for intelligent design that their work entails.

But the fact that genetic engineers are forging ahead without producing any new biological theory of information illustrates how difficult it is to grasp and implement these concepts. However, Italian biologist Marcello Barbieri believes he has found a way of moving on from the ‘statistics only’ view of information through what he calls the semantic theory of biology.¹⁹ He argues that we cannot make progress in this area until we find a mechanical model from which we can develop a mathematical model, which we can then use to integrate and organize the information and make experimentally verifiable predictions.

By way of explanation, Barbieri points out the mechanical and mathematical models underlying Darwin’s theory. Darwin developed his theory of natural selection by bringing together the experimental results of plant and animal breeding (i.e. organisms reproduce with slight variations that are subsequently inherited) with the population model of Thomas Malthus (i.e. populations grow exponentially, forcing a competition for resources). Barbieri then uses a computer as a mechanical model of the Mendelian (genetic) view of life. A computer with its hardware and software is a good analogy, taking the cell as the hardware with the genome as the software. But computers do not ceaselessly repair and reproduce themselves, as cells do, so this clearly exposes the inadequacy of the genetic view of life. Something more is needed.

Barbieri has brought together the problem of embryonic development (i.e. how can one cell differentiate into something as complex as a tree or a human being?) with an ingenious mathematical solution that he developed to the problem of reproducing computed tomography images from a less-than-complete set of data. Analytical solutions (that is, straightforward exact solutions) to the computed tomography problem exist, but only for impractically small data sets. For real life (large) data sets, an iterative method is required. But working iteratively with a complete set of tomographs is deadly slow and uses huge amounts of computer memory. Barbieri discovered that by adding a memory matrix to his results matrix (i.e. not only keeping track of the current best picture, but also remembering highlights from the past) he could rapidly converge onto the required image with as little as 10% of the full complement of tomographs.

Applying this principle to embryological development, Barbieri argues that growth from zygote to adult is a process of reconstructing the adult organism from incomplete starting information (i.e. only that which is in the zygote). His model predicts the existence of biological memory matrices that assist the process, and he is able to name at least some of them. For example, when embryonic cells differentiate they remain differentiated for life. A memory of differentiation must therefore be lodged somewhere within each cell. Similarly, the location of each cell within the body plan of the organism is remembered for life (and can be considerably rearranged during insect metamorphosis), so a memory of body plan must exist somewhere. He cites other examples as well.

Now for a memory to be a functional part of an organism (or a computer) there must be a code that relates each item in the memory to its functional complement in the organism. As an example, the genetic code relates DNA codon sequences (i.e. the genetic memory) to functional amino acid sequences in proteins. In a similar way there must be a differentiation code that relates the information in the ‘differentiation memory’ to the repair mechanisms in the cell that ceaselessly maintain the cell in its differentiated state.

Barbieri admits that much work needs to be done to develop and test these ideas, but he certainly seems to have opened a door to new ways of looking at life. The three main points of his semantic theory are:

1. The cell is fundamentally an epigenetic, rather than a genetic, system (i.e. cells and not genes control inheritance).
2. While the genes provide a genetic memory for the cell, there are other memories (waiting to be discovered and described) that assist in many aspects of embryonic development.
3. Each memory has its associated code—an arbitrary but irreducible and essential semiotic (see below) system—to enable the memory information to be implemented within the ceaseless self-maintenance of the cell.

Conclusion

The Gitt theory of information provides a whole new way of looking at biology. Purpose (apobetics) becomes the primary concern, rather than chance, as in Darwinism. Stasis of the created kinds requires the conservation of biological information, not the continual change that is required in Darwinism. Multi-dimensional information is also a very complex subject and requires a new way of thinking about life. Barbieri’s semantic theory of biology may provide a way ahead.

In Part II of this article, I shall reformulate the ‘information challenge’ (where did the new information in ‘goo to you’ evolution come from?) in terms of the Gitt theory. In Part III (to appear in a future issue of JoC), I shall look at experimental evidences for the way information is transferred and changed in biology.

A parallel can be drawn between information, as expressed in the English language (left), and biological information (above). The five dimensions in Werner Gitt’s theory of information (see previous image) can be applied to understand both the genetic code in DNA and the English language system.

[Avocado]

Nastanak novih hemijskih slova, rekombinacija postojecih informacija ako se promeni jedno hemijsko slovo na koji nacin se menja

i da li takva informacija sada ima drugo znacenje?

 

Znao sam da je pitanje zasnovano na šašavom kreacionističkom definisanju informacija... a ti dobro znaš da sam o tome još davno pisao i na šestodnevu... vi možete da tako šašavo definišete informacije da niz nukleotida AGTCATTAGGTC nije nova informacija u odnosu na niz AGTC, i da nova informacija može da nastane samo ako nastane neki novi nukleotid (kao i to da nakon nastanka alfabeta svaka knjiga na svetu ne sadrži nove informacije)... to je sasvim u redu, možete da se igrate u pesku do mile volje, s tim da naravno niko neće usvojiti takve definicije informacija jer su banalno nekorisne i služe samo za potrebe dokazivanja kreacionističkog Tvorca.

 

Međutim, glavni problem je što i sa tim definicijama ne dokazujete vašu ideju Tvorca. Jer, čak i ako prihvatimo te definicije, onda usled evolucije ne nastaju nove informacije, međutim, i dalje evolucijom nastaju promene u genima (zvali ih vi novim informacijama ili ne), i dalje se različite vrste međusobno razlikuju po nizovima parova nukleotida (bez obzira da li vi DNK čoveka smatrali novom informacijom u odnosu na DNK australopithecus-a). Nikako da naučite da ne možete semantičkim i filosofskim zavrzlamama da promenite realnost.