Genome information storage

[Receiver]

I have recently read that it's really a case of multiple linear codes that overlap, "data compression" such that reading it in different directions gives different instructions. Is this verified?

I find this mind-boggling.

 

[EternalDragon]

I have recently read that it's really a case of multiple linear codes that overlap, "data compression" such that reading it in different directions gives different instructions. Is this verified?

I find this mind-boggling.

The evo's here say there is no real information in living beings.

 

[sfs]

I have recently read that it's really a case of multiple linear codes that overlap, "data compression" such that reading it in different directions gives different instructions. Is this verified?

I find this mind-boggling.

Yes, that's verified. It's uncommon in something like the human genome, common in viral genomes, which are usually very compact. Viral genomes do a variety of funky things. For example, the Ebola virus edits its own genome, adding a uracil base at a specific spot. Edited copies (and their descendants) produce a different protein than the original sequence; the new protein is the one that covers the surface of the virus and enables entry into cells.

 

[sfs]

The evo's here say there is no real information in living beings.

No they don't. They say (or at least I say) that creationists don't mean anything in particular when they use the word "information".

 

[Receiver]

Yes, that's verified. It's uncommon in something like the human genome, common in viral genomes, which are usually very compact. Viral genomes do a variety of funky things. ...

Thanks.
hmm doesn't he fact that viruses have it but we don't raise a question for evolution?

I mean a simple information thread evolving is one thing, multiple reading points and directions is another!

Also if a mutation occurs it will affect numerous instructions won't it?

 

[sfs]

Thanks.
hmm doesn't he fact that viruses have it but we don't raise a question for evolution?

We have it, just not very much of it (compared to the number of genes we have). I don't see why it raises a question for evolution. Doesn't it raise a question for creation or intelligent design, though? If this is a good design, why isn't it used more widely? And who was responsible for the design of Ebola, anyway?

I mean a simple information thread evolving is one thing, multiple reading points and directions is another!

Not really. If you have a functional virus already, it's not that hard to have a mutation that initiates translation at a second spot. If the resulting peptide happens to help the virus (which won't happen very often, but it doesn't have to), then the mutation can spread.

Also if a mutation occurs it will affect numerous instructions won't it?

Yes. Genes with overlapping genes are highly constrained, meaning that we rarely see mutations in them. The mutations occur, but they are quickly weeded out by natural selection. Still, the virus probably experiences fewer deleterious mutations than one with the same number of non-overlapping genes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The evo's here say there is no real information in living beings.

No, more like wording it that way is misleading.

 

[Receiver]

We have it, just not very much of it (compared to the number of genes we have). I don't see why it raises a question for evolution.

The existence of even "normal" DNA seems impossible for evolution to explain seeing as it requires only left-hand amino acids joining in the right order and all the right ones available in a cell nucleaus type environment to even begin. Compressed information is arguably more advanced than code than can only be read one way and I've been told that viruses are the simplest life forms.

Doesn't it raise a question for creation or intelligent design, though? If this is a good design, why isn't it used more widely?
And who was responsible for the design of Ebola, anyway?

This article (or this) suggests that it may serve an as-yet unknown useful purpose in animals but has degraded. It is probably no co-incidence that it has caused deaths in Liberia and West Africa generally. If man observed the cleanliness laws God instritued this non-airborne virus would not have spread from animals to man and if the people of that area were not so poor they would not feel the need to take the risks that led to the outbreak. We have known about it since 1976.

Not really. If you have a functional virus already, it's not that hard to have a mutation that initiates translation at a second spot. If the resulting peptide happens to help the virus (which won't happen very often, but it doesn't have to), then the mutation can spread.

Are mutations tha initiate traslations often observed?
How often to tyhey succeed it gerenating useful new instructions (without destroying the previous purpose of that section of the DNA?

... the virus probably experiences fewer deleterious mutations than one with the same number of non-overlapping genes.

That seems counter-intuitive, I mean if I change a country lane going to one house it's not the same as moving spaghetti junction.

Even if you don't like that analogy, mutating DNA being used for several instructions will affect all those instructions. If it is only used for one it will only affect that one.

 

[sfs]

The existence of even "normal" DNA seems impossible for evolution to explain seeing as it requires only left-hand amino acids joining in the right order and all the right ones available in a cell nucleaus type environment to even begin. Compressed information is arguably more advanced than code than can only be read one way and I've been told that viruses are the simplest life forms.

DNA isn't made of amino acids (which are indeed left-handed in living things). The sugar backbone of DNA is right-handed, not left-handed. The chirality of our DNA is no doubt a product of the chirality of the RNA that preceded it. Various ideas for the origin of that chirality have been proposed, but however it happened, it predated the earliest life form and is thus not really a concern for evolution. So I still really do not see the issue.

This article (or this) suggests that it may serve an as-yet unknown useful purpose in animals but has degraded. It is probably no co-incidence that it has caused deaths in Liberia and West Africa generally.

Those links appear to contain a lot of speculation, but very few relevant facts.

If man observed the cleanliness laws God instritued this non-airborne virus would not have spread from animals to man and if the people of that area were not so poor they would not feel the need to take the risks that led to the outbreak. We have known about it since 1976.

Which cleanliness laws? The ones that the New Testament says are not binding on Christians? (Cleanliness laws don't help with everything, either. You can get Marburg virus just by going into the wrong cave, for example.)

Are mutations tha initiate traslations often observed?
How often to tyhey succeed it gerenating useful new instructions (without destroying the previous purpose of that section of the DNA?

I have no idea how common they are in viruses, which use a variety of mechanisms to initiate translation. They've been seen repeatedly in eukaryotes, but how often they occur is hard to say, since they tend to be noticed only when they interfere with the translation of an existing gene.

That seems counter-intuitive, I mean if I change a country lane going to one house it's not the same as moving spaghetti junction.

Even if you don't like that analogy, mutating DNA being used for several instructions will affect all those instructions. If it is only used for one it will only affect that one.

Most of the bases spelling out a gene are already constrained by being part of the gene: modify one of them, and the virus will fail to replicate. Add a new gene, and there are a whole bunch of new targets for mutation to cripple the virus. If the gene overlaps with an existing gene, however, many of the bases are already constrained by the previous gene. It doesn't matter whether a mutation disrupts one gene or two: either way, that virus is dead. Fewer targets for mutation means fewer deleterious mutations.

 

[[serious]]

The evo's here say there is no real information in living beings.

I've never seen that said. Now, I have made the case that for any single definition of information, it will either be possible to increase by natural mechanism, or it will be Irrelevant to evolution.

 

[Receiver]

Those links appear to contain a lot of speculation, but very few relevant facts.

It answers your question about the original good use of the code that ebola has and how it has become deadly.

Which cleanliness laws? The ones that the New Testament says are not binding on Christians? (Cleanliness laws don't help with everything, either. You can get Marburg virus just by going into the wrong cave, for example.)

The ones in Leviticus, which although not binding show that man was warned about the need to handle dead and diseased things very carefully, and to teach these things.
If these precepts are ignored the results can be deadly.

Most of the bases spelling out a gene are already constrained by being part of the gene: modify one of them, and the virus will fail to replicate. Add a new gene, and there are a whole bunch of new targets for mutation to cripple the virus. If the gene overlaps with an existing gene, however, many of the bases are already constrained by the previous gene. It doesn't matter whether a mutation disrupts one gene or two: either way, that virus is dead. Fewer targets for mutation means fewer deleterious mutations.

And yet doesn't evolution cite mutation as the source of new and increasingly complex life-forms?

 

[Papias]

Receiver wrote:

It answers your question about the original good use of the code that ebola has and how it has become deadly.

No, those articles are both misleading and misinformed.

Look, sfs is a professional working with DNA every day. He knows genetics. You've shown from your post that you don't know the first thing about it, and then you cite misleading articles like those, and suggest that sfs could learn something from them? the opposite is true.

The ones in Leviticus, which although not binding show......

By suggesting that we need to follow the laws that Paul said are not binding, you are making it look like Christianity is harmful and confused. I have a big enough problem getting atheists to listen to the gospel, and now they can point to you as further reason not to listen. Ouch.

And yet doesn't evolution cite mutation as the source of new and increasingly complex life-forms?

You obviously don't understand evolution, and worse, by talking like that to someone who understands mutations much better than either of us ever will, you make it look like we Christians are not just ignorant, but that we are proud to be ignorant. Again, you are hurting our witness and the cause of Christ.

If you are going to talk intelligently about evolution, you need to understand some basics, and stop acting as if learning was somehow evil, or that evolution doesn't fit with Christianity.

There are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity. Indeed, the majority of Evolution supporters in the united states are Christians. Similarly, the work of discovering evolution has mostly been done by scientists (of many fields) who are Christian.

I know what it is like to be convinced of something, and I'm sure you've heard many other Christians say that evolution is evil for a long time. However, please take the time to look into both sides with an open mind.

One place to start with examining the evidence for evolution is at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.

Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:
• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon. Compare any creationist "list" with Project Steve, times 100.
• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.
• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.
• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years, deciding this long before Darwin published his book.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution. Evolution is as firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception.
Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

I have recently read that it's really a case of multiple linear codes that overlap, "data compression" such that reading it in different directions gives different instructions. Is this verified?

I find this mind-boggling.

Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences.

Evolution and multilevel optimization of the genetic code.

The word "Evolution" is used here in the religious sense. People who worship "Evolution"
enshrine the idea of change as part of their religion instead of just saying "changes that occur over time".

 

[Receiver]

Papias, can you please writre a sentence, or paragraph in "high school" langauge to answer each of the following:

1) define evolution, what does it theoretically explain?

2) what mechanism causes evolution

3) do you acceopt that the fossil record indicates what actually happened?
If so, does it show instant creation of fully developed kinds and reproduction according to those kinds to be wrong?

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[SkyWriting]

1) define evolution, what does it theoretically explain?

2) what mechanism causes evolution

3) do you accept that the fossil record indicates what actually happened?

If so, does it show instant creation of fully developed kinds and reproduction according to those kinds to be wrong?

Evolution 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection 2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.




Mechanisms of Change - Each of these four processes is a basic mechanism of evolutionary change.





The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing. Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet.


Glad to help!

 

[Loudmouth]

Papias, can you please writre a sentence, or paragraph in "high school" langauge to answer each of the following:

1) define evolution, what does it theoretically explain?

I am not Papias, but hopefully I can lend some help . . .

Evolution is the change in populations over time due to mutation, selection, speciation, genetic drift, and other mechanisms. It attempts to explain the data we do have, such as the genomic and fossil evidence. For example, evolution explains why complex life fits into groups within groups, such as humans falling within the primate group, and all primates falling within the mammal group. It also explains why we see fossils with a mixture of dinosaur and bird features, but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features.

Evolution does not attempt to explain where life came from, only how life changed once it was here.

2) what mechanism causes evolution

The big players are random mutation, selection, speciation, and genetic drift. There are other mechanisms, but those are the main ones.

3) do you acceopt that the fossil record indicates what actually happened?
If so, does it show instant creation of fully developed kinds and reproduction according to those kinds to be wrong?

How do you determine if a fossil was instantly created? I have never understood that one. Also, we find fossils with a mixture of characteristics from what creationists claim are separate kinds. For example, we find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. How do you explain that?

 

[Receiver]

Evolution 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection 2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

What do you mean "natural selection"?
If it is varieties being selected from what's already in the genome then how did all that information get there in the first place?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/time_1.htm Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found.

If they have not yet been found, how do we know they exist?

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you mean "natural selection"?
If it is varieties being selected from what's already in the genome then how did all that information get there in the first place?

As mentioned in other posts, random mutation is the source for new DNA sequences.

If they have not yet been found, how do we know they exist?

The theory is based on the fossils we do have along with analysis of the homology shared by living species.

 

[Receiver]

Evolution is the change in populations

So evolution doesn't explain how those populations got there in the first place?

What are those "populations"?

What do you mean "change"?

over time due to mutation, selection,

If it is "selection" then according to the common useage of that word it means reducing the amount of information?

speciation,

Can you please explain this term in "high school" language & how it works.

genetic drift,

Can you please explain this term in "high school" language & how it works.

and other mechanisms.

Can you please say what these are & how they work?

... It also explains why we see fossils with a mixture of dinosaur and bird features, but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features.

I don't know if that's a reference to Archaeopteryx but I recently looked into that and found the following points:

1) The dental structure of Archaeopteryx and other toothed birds is very different from that of dinosaurs. The surfaces of the teeth in Archaeopteryx and other toothed birds are flat, and they have broad roots.Yet the surfaces of teeth of the theropod dinosaurs, which are alleged to be the forerunners of these birds, are serrated like saws, and their roots are narrow.

Teeth are not an exclusively reptilian characteristic. Some modern-day reptiles have teeth, but others do not. Even more importantly, extinct species of toothed birds are not limited to Archaeopteryx. The fossil record contains a separate group that we may describe as "toothed birds" that lived both at the same time as Archaeopteryx and afterwards — and indeed, until fairly recent times.

2) Evolutionists point to the claws on Archaeopteryx's wings as evidence that it evolved from dinosaurs and that the animal is a transitional species. However, this feature in not evidence of evolution, only of best structure for environment. Two living species of bird —Touraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoazin — each have claws that serve to cling onto branches. These creatures are fully-fledged birds, with no reptilian characteristics.

3) Until the 1990s, Archaeopteryx fossils' lack of wishbone was presented as the most important evidence that it could not fly. However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, discovered in 1992, showed that this assertion was incorrect.

Asymmetrical feathers are designed for flight (Emus and ostriches don't have them).

Because of its feathers, Archaeopteryx is distinctly to be classed as a bird
It's general wind structure andf size shows it was indeed able to fly.

4) Another blow to the evolutionist thesis concerning Archaeopteryx comes from its digits. It has been discovered that the embryonic development of the forearm bones is completely different in birds than in theropod dinosaurs.

Theropod dinosaurs' forearms or "hands" consist of digits I, II, and III, while the wings of birds consist of digits II, III, and IV.

But the elephants in the room that people that look at structures that suit environment such as teeth, scales on birds legs are the huge leap of faith you have to make to say that feathers evolved from scales and the major fifferences in bard and reptiliam respiratory system and bone structure.

How do you determine if a fossil was instantly created? I have never understood that one.

It's the creatures that are instantly created, according to the creation paradigm, by an all-knowing God who didn't develop a miriad of earlier forms that we havn't found yet as time went on.

Also, we find fossils with a mixture of characteristics from what creationists claim are separate kinds. For example, we find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. How do you explain that?

Not something I've studied so all I could do is copy & paste what someone else has found.
I know there have been numerous attempts using bones of humans with rickets, embryos and even a pig's tooth to say that humans evolved from apes, but lets say your example is a genuine creature that shows more similarities to humans than other apes. It's obviously impresed you so maybe you could advise further?