Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why Bother? A scientific Critique of Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="chickenman" data-source="post: 214657" data-attributes="member: 2570"><p>Max: I want to make it clear that I dont buy your interpretation of certain specific mutations as reflecting a loss of information. You state that the information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are: level of catalytic activity, specificity with respect to the substrate, strength [and specificity] of binding to cell structure, [and] specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation. This formulation is vague, non-quantitative, not supported by clear logic, not accepted in the scientific literature (to the best of my knowledge; please educate me if I am wrong), and in my view not useful.</p><p></p><p>Spetner: Ed, the level of your argument here is quite low. You have seen this entire section (above), and you took from the introduction my list of what characteristics can contribute to the information content of an enzyme and criticized it for being non-quantitative (followed by other pejorative epithets). Is that supposed to be some sort of debating tactic? In any case, the tactic is out of place in this discussion. From the context of what I wrote, it should have been clear to you that this partial list of characteristics that can contribute to the information in an enzyme was an introduction to my quantitative estimate of one of the characteristics of specificity of an enzyme. After I showed how one might calculate the information related to a type of specificity, I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%.<strong>I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%.</strong> </p><p></p><p></p><p>gotta love that last sentence. He actually did nothing of the sort, for some strange reason he equated specificity for with "information" - there doesn't seem to be any rational explanation for why he did this. I personally can't see how he came to that conclusion - its like stating a car with 4 doors has more "information" than a 3-door car. Completely illogical, and Max's objection is perfectly reasonable</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="chickenman, post: 214657, member: 2570"] Max: I want to make it clear that I dont buy your interpretation of certain specific mutations as reflecting a loss of information. You state that the information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are: level of catalytic activity, specificity with respect to the substrate, strength [and specificity] of binding to cell structure, [and] specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation. This formulation is vague, non-quantitative, not supported by clear logic, not accepted in the scientific literature (to the best of my knowledge; please educate me if I am wrong), and in my view not useful. Spetner: Ed, the level of your argument here is quite low. You have seen this entire section (above), and you took from the introduction my list of what characteristics can contribute to the information content of an enzyme and criticized it for being non-quantitative (followed by other pejorative epithets). Is that supposed to be some sort of debating tactic? In any case, the tactic is out of place in this discussion. From the context of what I wrote, it should have been clear to you that this partial list of characteristics that can contribute to the information in an enzyme was an introduction to my quantitative estimate of one of the characteristics of specificity of an enzyme. After I showed how one might calculate the information related to a type of specificity, I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%.[B]I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%.[/B] gotta love that last sentence. He actually did nothing of the sort, for some strange reason he equated specificity for with "information" - there doesn't seem to be any rational explanation for why he did this. I personally can't see how he came to that conclusion - its like stating a car with 4 doors has more "information" than a 3-door car. Completely illogical, and Max's objection is perfectly reasonable [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why Bother? A scientific Critique of Evolution
Top
Bottom