DNA duplication, mutation, and information

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

You appear to be struggling with disagreement.

He’s not struggling at all. Disagreement is a snap when you spout nonsense.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@John_Harshman

Thus, every generation there are around 200 mutations fixed in the human population. Isn’t that enough to account for the observed data?

This is the right direction. I need to break. Will try to engage tonight or tomorrow am.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Not until you can validate that gene loss/gain was the real cause of the pattern.

Gene loss and gain are the observations, not the cause.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

Not until you can validate that gene loss/gain was the real cause of the pattern.

How would you validate that? It seems that we have good evidence for both gene loss and gain. Lost genes frequently leave behind remnants (pseudogenes) that can last for millions of years. We see those pseudogenes in sequence data. Not only that, but the pseudogene and gene sequences follow a nested hierarchy themselves, demonstrating their homology. What more could be required?

[John_Harshman]

@T_aquaticus

Gene loss and gain are the observations

Not so. Gene presence and absence are the observations. Loss and gain explain the observations.

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

Not so. Gene presence and absence are the observations. Loss and gain explain the observations.

Good point.

[Chris_Falter]

@Meerkat_SK5

They are not the same thing. So can you define what you mean by materialism ?

I didn’t use the term materialism, so I will decline to define it.

I did say that quantum information theory insists that information is material. By that, I mean that information does not exist (according to QIT) unless and until it is embedded in particles (or wave-particles, or fields – whatever your preferred formulation of physics).

The implication is that, to the extent QIT is part of the scientific enterprise, science disagrees with your first and third tenet. And the second appears dubious at best.

Personally, I believe in the supernatural hand of God and the activity of angels and demons. When I am thinking scientifically, though, I set my belief in the supernatural aside so I can collaborate with those who disagree with me about spiritual things. I also believe that the supernatural is intimately linked with the natural via providence and miracles. But again, this is not a scientific belief.

Hope this post is useful to you, @Meerkat_SK5!

Chris

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Chris_Falter

I did say that quantum information theory insists that information is material. By that, I mean that information does not exist (according to QIT) unless and until it is embedded in particles (or wave-particles, or fields – whatever your preferred formulation of physics).

I encourage to read the article below which shows that the Wave-function is not just a useful mathematical fiction but exists independently from classical space-time. Wave functions are possible configurations of matter or a universe in the form of mathematical equations that are regarded as the “basic physical entity” representing the “totality of existence”.

[Universal wavefunction - Wikipedia]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26893-wave-function-gets-real-in-quantum-experiment/

@Chris_Falter

The implication is that, to the extent QIT is part of the scientific enterprise, science disagrees with your first and third tenet. And the second appears dubious at best.

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@colewd

This is an argument that an alternative (Immaterial) model may be useful. A model should simulate what we are observing. What is unclear to me is the actual model you would be testing. This is why I offered Winston Ewerts model as something to work with.

In your model how does DNA act as information? We know it codes for functioning proteins but what else?
What evidence are you developing to support the claim “minds are immaterial”?
What evidence are you developing the claim that mutations appear to be goal directed?

Actually, nevermind. The syllogism is not necessary to bring up or discuss. I am just going to get started on updating and revising my theory and model. So stay tuned.

[Witchdoc]

@colewd

Yes under methodological naturalism Johns explanation makes sense.

This point is silly.

Science can only be done under MN; science requires repeatability / reproducibility.

Imagine trying to demonstrate, under non-methodological supernaturalism that some supernatural force did X.

If the supernatural force X was repeatable/reproducible, then actually, it wouldn’t be supernatural and can be explored by MN.

If supernatural force X is not repeatable, ie what supernatural force X does under a certain situation is not consistent and varies, then supernatural force X will never under any circumstances be able to be proven to be the cause of anything.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5

Thanks for your contribution but I need you and everyone else to take a look at this syllogism and critique it before I create a new topic that revises and updates my theory and model.

You might want to go digging through some of the older discussions on these topics and save a lot of rehashing. Briefly …

Information is information, “digital” is just a convenient way for human devices to record it. It’s also physical, representing the energy need to “flip the bits”.

The information in DNA is coded chemically, and doesn’t resemble the syntax of any human language. You may be conflating information and meaning (many do). Information in the mathematical sense doesn’t have anything to do with meaning, and the information in DNA has no meaning other than the chemistry it enables.

@Meerkat_SK5

Positive results in pre-biotic experiments require human intervention

There are numerous examples of pre-biotic compounds found in nature, some even forming in space (comets, asteroids, etc.).

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Witchdoc

If supernatural force X is not repeatable, ie what supernatural force X does under a certain situation is not consistent and varies, then supernatural force X will never under any circumstances be able to be proven to be the cause of anything.

Hi WD
How do you eliminate that a supernatural force was not the direct cause for what we are observing? Certainly with experiments demonstrating the local effect of gravity you can by repeating experiments as you have articulated.

What do we do when repeatable experiments are not possible against an observation? Does this mean the claims are beyond the scope of science?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

You may be conflating information and meaning (many do). Information in the mathematical sense doesn’t have anything to do with meaning, and the information in DNA has no meaning other than the chemistry it enables.

It builds a fully functioning animal. Less meaning than the code from a 3D printer that builds a toy boat.

[Chris_Falter]

@colewd

How do you eliminate that a supernatural force was not the direct cause for what we are observing? Certainly with experiments demonstrating the local effect of gravity you can by repeating experiments as you have articulated.

Suppose you release a ball 10 times, and it falls each time. How can you prove that the ball was not borne to the ground by an angel?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Chris_Falter

Suppose you release a ball 10 times, and it falls each time. How can you prove that the ball was not borne to the ground by an angel?

Hi Chris
By our newtonian model and repeatable experiments we can gain confidence that the balls movement was based on the properties of two opposing masses. We cannot prove it was not effected by an angel but we can show through the model and repeated experiment that the mass of the objects was the likely direct cause. If we want to understand the origin of those properties that becomes a much more difficult problem.

As we deviate from a identified mechanism (mass) and a model confirmed by experiment that can predict how the two masses will interact determining the cause becomes more difficult. This can get to the point that the potential action of the angel becomes interesting especially when the evidence points to a mind as the mechanism or cause.

The problem is that the action of minds is much harder to predict than the forces of matter. This makes modeling difficult. The closest I have seen to modeling a minds behavior is @Winston_Ewert dependency diagram. It is only early in the first inning of its development but I think it has lots of potential.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@colewd

We cannot prove it was not effected by an angel but we can show through the model and repeated experiment that the mass of the objects was the likely direct cause.

Yes, we cannot prove it was not angels. In the same way, we cannot prove that mass isn’t just the push of angels.

So maybe what is called a “law of nature” is really a law of the supernatural behavior of angels.

That’s why these arguments about MN are not relevant. Science works by its ability to predict. Whether that predictability come from nature or from supernatural actions is entirely beside the point.

Personally, I have never thought that science depended on methodological naturalism.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

Hi Chris
By our newtonian model and repeatable experiments we can gain confidence that the balls movement was based on the properties of two opposing masses.

So how many times should we repeat the dropping ball experiment before we conclude that there’s definitely not an invisible angel systematically using it’s divine powers to move the ball? 5, 50, 5000000?

At what point does the experiment reveal the angel is not involved? And in what way does two objects moving towards each other show it is not an invisible supernatural force that is responsible? It should be perfectly obvious to any honest person that this can not be done.

We could just reverse your argument and say that by repeatable experiments can we gain confidence that the balls movement was based on an invisible angel. Oh look, it fell down again! We can now be very confident the angel is pushing on the ball.

Sorry Bill but your continued reference to methodological naturalism doesn’t make any logical sense. You’re going to have to tell Paul Nelson to give you some better material to endlessly repeat.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

Thanks for your contribution but I need you and everyone else to take a look at this syllogism and critique it before I create a new topic that revises and updates my theory and model.

A few posts later, after several people (including @colewd!) have pointed out problems with the syllogism:

@Meerkat_SK5

Actually, nevermind. The syllogism is not necessary to bring up or discuss. I am just going to get started on updating and revising my theory and model. So stay tuned.

A magnificent example of the reverse ferret manoeuvre, and an excellent reminder why @Meerkat_SK5’s posts are good only for entertainment purposes.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Roy

A magnificent example of the reverse ferret manoeuvre, and an excellent reminder why @Meerkat_SK5’s posts are good only for entertainment purposes.

That is unnecessary.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@nwrickert

That’s why these arguments about MN are not relevant. Science works by its ability to predict. Whether that predictability come from nature or from supernatural actions is entirely beside the point.

Personally, I have never thought that science depended on methodological naturalism.

I agree.

Science loses its steam when it moves away from tested predictive models as a standard. If tested predictive models are the standard then methodological naturalism often comes along for free.

If methodological naturalism is the standard and you move away from tested predictive models then you start to acquire distorted reality.