Looking for sources on the information argument

[Dan_Eastwood]

I made this graphic a few years ago for a similar discussion, but the discussion wandered off before I had it ready, and I never used it.

The idea here is the white ring is a moat or valley of no function, surrounded by the blue area moderate function. The green island in the middle is region of high function.
The bubbles from D to C represent step-stones, or a bridge from moderate to high function (if it exist).
The arrows from A and B to C represent a recombination of features in the current population to “jump the moat” into high function. A (x1, y1) and B (x2,y2) recombine to make a new trait C (x2,y1) that did not exist before, crossing the valley.

This is a 2-dimension representation of how recombination can cross a “valley”. Evolution will be operating in higher dimensions (which I cannot illustrate) offering multiple opportunities to jump the valley.

At least I finally got to use this image.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

But one cannot generalize this possibility for it must be experimentally investigated on a case by case basis.

I disagree completely and wonder how you can generalize Axe’s extrapolation from a single, poorly investigated case.

But just for fun, for how many of these cases have you personally examined the experimental data?

[stlyankeefan]

Can I use this in my lecture slides? With proper attribution, of course.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Of course, but bear in mind I am no sort of biologist.

@Dan_Eastwood

The arrows from A and B to C represent a recombination of features in the current population to “jump the moat” into high function. A (x1, y1) and B (x2,y2) recombine to make a new trait C (x2,y1) that did not exist before, crossing the valley.

Now I recall my original line of thought. Points A and B represent point on a cartesian coordinates on a plane. Swapping coordinates allows a jump to point C. The analogy to trading alleles or sequences is similar, but it’s not limited to 2D solutions.

I don’t have a good way to describe the higher-dimension situation, and this is probably where I got stuck in my first effort with this graphic. In 3D the valley can also be jumped from above and below, but higher dimensions are a brain bender. The idea is that if sub-sequences of the high function sequence exist in the genome, then recombination can allow the no-function valley to be jumped.

[DaveB]

@Rumraket

@DaveB

There is no chemical law or law of physics which explains the sequence of DNA bases.

This is not really true of course. There is some series of physical and chemical causes of why some given DNA sequence is the way it is. It’s ancestor used to have some sequence, and then there is some physical cause of a mutation in that sequence, giving us the descendant sequence, same would be true for the ancestor, which itself has physical causes of why it is the way it is, all the way back to the origin of the first genetic sequence.

You might not be able to name a physical “law” as being responsible, but it is false to say it isn’t due to physics and chemistry(there is no physical “law” that explains why yesterday’s weather was the way it was, but physics and chemistry does explain it, through the interactions between the Earth’s atmosphere with the sun and so on).
There is definitely a complex history of physics and chemistry that explains both any extant, and any ancestral DNA sequence. The DNA sequence having a contingent and complex physical history does not mean they have no physical and chemical explanation. That’s a non-sequitur.

What I said is true and not that difficult to understand. There is no law of chemistry or physics that explains the DNA sequence, by which I mean the order of the bases. The chemical nature of atoms and molecules does not require or impose any particular order of the bases.

Your response boils down to “heredity” or “evolution”, which does not refute my claim at all. And, of course, you completely skip over the issue of abiogenesis, which is where the ID argument begins. You can’t have heredity without the means of replication, which requires information.

@Rumraket

@DaveB

Chemistry explains how proteins and rna products operate, but does not explain the DNA sequences from which they were derived.

That would be like saying there is no physical explanation for the particular arrangement of matter we call the Mt. Everest. We might give a generalized explanation by invoking things like gravity, plate tectonics, and electromagnetism, as all being parts of the explanation for the particular arrangement, but these forces must then be understood in the context of the initial conditions of the solar system and the formation of the planet and so on, and of course we can go back further still to the initial conditions of the universe.
You might say there’s nothing in the force of gravity alone that demands the existence of the Mt. Everest, but if we think about it we can still see that gravity is still very much a part of the explanation for the Mt. Everest. The pressures exerted by the gravitational pull of the planet are part of the explanation for it’s particular size, shape and structure. Then there are all the electrostatic interactions between all the atoms that make it up, and how pressures in the Earth’s crust and mantle have changed over time etc. etc. Thus there really is, in principle, a total physical and chemical explanation for the Mt. Everest, it’s just practically outside our ability to provide. It’s not that physics and chemistry can’t and doesn’t explain it, it’s that we just lack sufficiently detailed knowledge of the system that gave rise to it to give this explanation.

All the same things are true for any given DNA sequence. There really is a physical and chemical explanation for why some particular sequence exists. It’s just much too complicated and too sensitive to local conditions at the atomic level at any given moment in time for us to be able to give a complete world-history for all the subatomic particles that are part of that explanation.

I’m getting the idea that you don’t understand the ID information argument very well.

There is no sequential information in Mt. Everest. You are trying to equate complexity with specified complexity.

Simple complexity: sdflkeoijb lkasd elifdkg iedlji ghckeq iemdboprn dkqzehd

Specified complexity: My username on the Peaceful Science forum is DaveB.

Specified complex information is functional, sequential information. Whether that is telling you my username, or specifying the order of nucleotides or amino acids in a functional rna product or protein.

The ID information argument includes Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”.

(1) Does a law explain it? (2) Does chance explain it? (3) Does design explain it?

Law and chance can explain Mt. Everest, but not specified complex information.

[DaveB]

@stlyankeefan

Yes, chemistry does explain both the sequence of amino acids and the sequence of DNA bases. Amino acids fall into different chemical classes based on their side chains - some are acidic, some are neutral, some are polar, some are non-polar, etc. And the chemistry of these side chains affect what they will bind to. For example, arginine and lysine are positively charged amino acids that interact ionically with DNA’s phosphate backbone.
There is also a fair amount of flexibility in swapping amino acids without losing function. Since arginine and lysine are chemically similar, substituting one for another probably won’t cause loss of function. But replacing arginine with glutamate or glycine will probably cause loss of binding activity.

Similarly, certain DNA sequences are capable of binding to these proteins and other sequences aren’t, again due to chemistry. For example, promoter regions tend to be AT rich or GC rich.

There are literally thousands of papers on this topic. Here is just one example.Effects of lysine-to-arginine substitution on antimicrobial activity of cationic stapled heptapeptides - PubMed
Disclaimer, I didn’t have time to read the paper, but I skimmed the abstract. I can provide more references later if necessary.

I think you’ve completely missed my point.

I agree that once the rna or protein is formed, it operates due to chemistry.

[DaveB]

@stlyankeefan

If you don’t believe that DNA sequence matters or that it matters because of chemistry, read about mutations in the promoter region. Here is just one reference.Mutations in the promoter reveal a cause for the reduced expression of the human manganese superoxide dismutase gene in cancer cells | Oncogene
Again, I skimmed the abstract because I’m supposed to be paying attention in a Zoom meeting, but I can post more references later. There are thousands of papers to choose from.

I truly don’t understand how you can think that I don’t believe that DNA sequence matters.

What did I say that makes you think that?