The Extra Face in Mount Rushmore

[T_aquaticus]

@Kirk

@Kirk

The have been attempts in the literature to define FI. Here is my attempt Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins and here is another from Hazen et al. Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity

From my understanding, both of those papers measure mutual information, not functional information.

@Kirk

I would not want to automatically reject natural processes as being able to produce FI. Rather, I think we need to limit our options to what we can empirically verify as having an ability to produce FI. If there is a natural process that we can empirically verify as doing it, then my earlier hypothesis is falsified. We would then be left with two options, rather than just one.

You may want to check out my thread on catalytic antibodies:

Are Catalytic Antibodies Evidence for Evolution of New Function?

One of the common claims heard in these debates is that there is a low probability of random sequence having function. Catalytic antibodies may offer a good way of testing this claim. During embryonic development, B-cells go through a process where segments of DNA are randomly shuffled and stitched together (VDJ recombination) to make the variable regions of antibodies, the sections of the antibody that are responsible for sticking to bacteria, viruses, and other antigens. Each B-cell lineage has just one combination of this shuffled DNA, and there are about 100 million B-cell lineages in each human being and in other mammalian species [NOTE: I’m not sure how this may or may not work in more distantly related vertebrate species, so I am sticking with mammals]. So what are the chances that these randomly shuffled bits of DNA will have enzyme activity? As it turns out, antibodies with enzyme function are relatively common. The following review article discusses several different c…