Heliocentrism was Aristarchus’ assumption in 300 BC backed by no (none, nada, zero, zilch, zip) equations whatsoever, much less by Newtonian mechanics.
Mutation rates, like both Newtonian mechanics and fluid dynamics, are approximations of discrete phenomena.
Given that you hurl insults at the knowledge of scientists without being a scientist, I suppose I should not be surprised that you would, without being a software developer, insinuate that I am ignorant about software
I have a really slick IDE on my computer that does amazing things. Complete with a vast library of functional APIs, it occupies only 436 MB of disk space.
This is an interesting hypothesis, but do you have any supporting data (numbers)? Perhaps you’re referring to epigenetics that accounts [among others] for the differences between identical twins. Ok, there’s some information there, but not significant if we compare any identical twins. Say you double the information to 2 GB and now you are at the size of Android OS on my phone. Is that comparable in any way to a human with its HW and SW and Manufacturing from zygote to adult?
Do you think Android OS is not compressed? What about jpeg or any other pictures? A medium size picture on my phone (compressed!) - nothing fancy - is 8 MB of data. Can you capture in a single picture all the differences between Human and Chimp?!? HW, SW and Manufacturing?
Yes - same with software - that’s why SW is tested on all possible platforms before release.
Have you ever observed this imaginary transmutation you keep bringing up? What transmutation rate exactly do you imagine? And what about dominant/recessive alleles? How can you have transmutation if alleles are yes/no (1/0, digital, discrete, etc.)? No gradualism there. “Punctuated Equilibrium” is another unobserved, hence imaginary concept.
Actually all examples I see are On/Off. For sure it is not continuous (no gradualism). Regardless, gene expression in heredity is epigenetics inheritance, aka Lamarckism. Either way, Darwinism fails.
No, my argument is against “DNA essence of life” and that’s a problem for “man just another ape”. Did you even read it? Did you understand?
Not Heliocentrism again… Anyway, both of those guys ventured some random guesses based on no science whatsoever and both are wrong, yet no one worships Aristarchus these days. Prophet Darwin on the other hand… See the difference?
It doesn’t work like that, remember? “This view were acceptable if and only if the contribution of the discrete points were strictly cumulative (such as when many water molecules form water waves).” This is not what happens with mutations. Not only are they not cumulative, but each one mutation can have a dramatic impact on the individual.
No doubt. But can it develop (Manufacture) a human from a zygote? Can it store a human’s intelligence and behavior (Software)? Can it entirely describe the human body (Hardware)? Does it come even close to being able to do any of those? Can Google with its mega-farms of servers do any of these tasks? Can anyone? Can 1 GB of DNA do that?
You are getting close. Don’t think of DNA as simply static data. Think of it as a computer program. I wrote a small, less than 2 Kb in size if my memory is correct, program that could generate random mazes in user specified sizes. The mazes were quite complex and difficult to solve, for a human, but the program could also solve the maze after it was generated. It was quite fun to watch.
You are making my argument for me. If gene expression is dependent on the physical environment you can’t say the information is just limited to what is in the DNA. The information is now expanded by the nearly limitless environments that influence DNA expression.
It’s hardly a hypothesis. Stem-loops are the classic example, and they serve as transcription terminators. The tightly controlled arabinose operon is yet another example where the DNA is bent into a loop structure to inhibit transcription. A search for either of those terms should find all the info you need.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:23, topic:36834”]
Have you ever observed this imaginary transmutation you keep bringing up? What transmutation rate exactly do you imagine? And what about dominant/recessive alleles? How can you have transmutation if alleles are yes/no (1/0, digital, discrete, etc.)? No gradualism there. “Punctuated Equilibrium” is another unobserved, hence imaginary concept.
[/quote]
Have I ever witnessed a process that takes millions of years in my 40 some odd years of life on the planet? Of course not. However, we find plenty of examples in the fossil record, such as the gradual growth of cranium size in hominids:
Also, alleles are not yes/no. A good example is human skin color where there are alleles with low, moderate, and high melanin expression. I can find a ton of examples if you want more. I don’t know where you got the idea that alleles are either all on or all off.
Phyletic gradualism has nothing to do with gene expression levels, so I don’t know why in the world you are mentioning it here. For example, you can read this paper and find different levels of expression in MyD88 positive and negative mice in response to LPS. The expression of different cytokines is modulated by MyD88 dependent pathways so that you get moderate and high expression. This is just one fast example that I found, and I can find more if you want.
Also, almost all epigenetic markers are erased in gametes which means that the majority of epigenetic markers are not inherited. The differences between species is not due to epigenetics. Those differences are due to differences in DNA sequence within their genomes.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:23, topic:36834”]
No, my argument is against “DNA essence of life” and that’s a problem for “man just another ape”. Did you even read it? Did you understand?
[/quote]
How is it a problem for man being an ape? Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas and orangutans. If chimps are apes. then so too are humans.
What does this mean? Try again. As far as compression, 64 bits (3 nucleotides) select 20 aminoacids - an example of inefficient compression in DNA.
Not so. Your argument was “DNA is different than SW”. Read again.
The hypothesis was that DNA information is much more than the 1GB, due to shape of DNA strand, not that shape matters - yes, we know that. To this, my comment was: “…do you have any supporting data (numbers)? Perhaps you’re referring to epigenetics that accounts [among others] for the differences between identical twins. Ok, there’s some information there, but not significant if we compare any identical twins. Say you double the information to 2 GB and now you are at the size of Android OS on my phone. Is that comparable in any way to a human with its HW and SW and Manufacturing from zygote to adult?” This is what you should address.
So the answer is “No”, millions of wishful thoughts notwithstanding.
Yes, alleles can be polymorphic, but it’s all limited to the [discrete] number of bits in that gene. DNA-dependent part of skin color only seems continuous to you because “there are a total of 378 genetic loci involved in determining skin color in human and mice”. That’s much more than your SVGA monitor (24 bit x 3 colors). It’s still discrete, and like length, width, weight, not a intrinsic parameter in biology (it changes with the environment and applies to the nonliving objects as well). This is not a good example of gradualism in biology.
Sorry, no time to read all random papers. The power of digital technology is that with enough bits, it all seems continuous to you. Witness TV, Cartoons, Movies, CDs, DVDs, etc. etc.
If you read the original topic, you will see that human DNA is only 8 MB different than chimp DNA. And this is only twice as much as what separates two human DNAs. Do you truly believe that the difference between you and a chimp - including Manufacturing (development), Hardware (anatomy) and Software (intelligence) amounts to a medium size picture on your phone? Do truly believe a chimp is only twice as removed from you than another human being? Try to grasp the argument before attempting to debate.
You agreed with my statement that gene expression can change with physical environment changes. The environment for a software program is just the data that is presented to the program and if exactly the same data is presented to a program it generates exactly the same output. If it didn’t software wouldn’t be very useful. Software execution does change when the data environment changes (changing platforms would change the data environment hence the requirement to test in different platforms). Gene expression changes when the environment changes (your words). So SW != DNA.
As long as you agree that the 3D structure of DNA and RNA matters, then we can move on. What we are pointing out is that it is the chemical characteristics that gives DNA its information.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:26, topic:36834”]
“…do you have any supporting data (numbers)? Perhaps you’re referring to epigenetics that accounts [among others] for the differences between identical twins. Ok, there’s some information there, but not significant if we compare any identical twins. Say you double the information to 2 GB and now you are at the size of Android OS on my phone. Is that comparable in any way to a human with its HW and SW and Manufacturing from zygote to adult?” This is what you should address.
[/quote]
There is no reason to reject the well supported theory that DNA and its sequence of nucleotide bases is responsible for the heritable physical characteristics found in species. [quote=“NonlinOrg, post:26, topic:36834”]
So the answer is “No”, millions of wishful thoughts notwithstanding.
[/quote]
The only wishful thoughts belong to you in your attempts to wish away the fossil evidence which supports gradual changes in species.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:26, topic:36834”]
Sorry, no time to read all random papers. The power of digital technology is that with enough bits, it all seems continuous to you. Witness TV, Cartoons, Movies, CDs, DVDs, etc. etc.
[/quote]
And now you are trying wish away modulation of gene expression. If you are willing to admit that genes aren’t simply on or off then we can move on.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:26, topic:36834”]
If you read the original topic, you will see that human DNA is only 8 MB different than chimp DNA. And this is only twice as much as what separates two human DNAs. Do you truly believe that the difference between you and a chimp - including Manufacturing (development), Hardware (anatomy) and Software (intelligence) amounts to a medium size picture on your phone? Do truly believe a chimp is only twice as removed from you than another human being? Try to grasp the argument before attempting to debate.
[/quote]
The human and chimp genomes are separated by 35 million point mutations and 5 million indels containing 67 million bases. Overall, our genomes differ by about 100 million bases due to 40 million mutational events. You can find the chimp genome paper here.
The 1,000 Genomes project reported that the average human genome differs from the reference human genome by 4-5 million mutations covering 20 million bases (paper here). Compare this to 40 million mutations and 100 million bases between the human and chimp genomes, so about a fifth of the variation between humans as compared to humans and chimps.
All of the evidence points to the conclusion that the differences between chimps and humans is due to the DNA sequence difference between our genomes.
I accept the findings that the common ancestor between humans and chimps existed 5-7 million years ago, and that my common ancestor with any other human being probably existed in the last 100,000 years.
The entire premise of this thread is based on a strawman consisting of unsound logic and an attempt to cut it down using even more unsound logic. As a spectator it is rather painful to read along and see NonLinOrg’s points getting slaughtered. Maybe it is time to drop the subject or start a new thread on a related topic. Just a suggestion to save your energy, because there will always be someone left who’s “wrong” on the internet.
This is 100% illogical. Both DNA and SW change when the environment changes. How on Earth do you get from there “SW != DNA” ?!? Just to make sure, ‘!=’ is ‘not equal’ in your neck of the woods too, right? Craig Venter thinks DNA is The Software of Life …and he’s not alone!
But how much does 3D structure matter? “Chemical characteristics” is super-non-specific. Of course the ACGT nucleotides are “chemical characteristics”. Which additional 3D structure exactly do you have in mind (if any)? And how is data stored in said 3D structure? And how much data is in said 3D structure? Go back and read the last two paragraph of the original post: “we don’t know where the info is, but it’s not in the 1GB”, and “the implications are bad for human-just-another-ape”.
Yours is the story of Darwinism: unsupported generalities and random claims. You must be a black belt.
Not this topic, but the fossil record is “evidence” in the same sense animation is “evidence” of real life events.
Why would genes be on-off? Genes are collections of nucleotides, each storing 2 bits of information. As such, they contain many binary switches, hence more information than one binary switch which indeed can be only on-off (0-1).
Wikipedia: “each human is 99.5% similar to any other human”. Your source said: “Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome”. 1/2 vs 1/5 is a matter of interpretation and it doesn’t change the conclusions: DNA is not enough to make us humans, hence “human just another ape based on DNA” is wrong.
This shows you just can’t or won’t grasp the problem. That’s fine, but I cannot go on explaining in vain.
Can you explain “strawman” and “unsound logic”? If you indeed understand the topic, why not bring your arguments to the table instead of bluntly censoring? How do you figure my points are “getting slaughtered”? Sorry, is this “Alice in Wonderland”?
It can matter a lot as discussed earlier. It can control gene expression, as one example. If you think epigenetics is important due to the way it can alter gene expression, then the 3D structure of DNA is just as important.
The hydrogen bonds between bases are very important which is determined by their chemical characterstics. The physical and chemical interactions between DNA and RNA/proteins is extremely important, especially with reference to gene expression. If you replaced DNA with a small ticker tape that had the DNA letters on them it wouldn’t produce the same results. We write letters with ink, but it is the letters that matter. With DNA, it is the ink that matters.
Characterizing DNA in that way doesn’t make any sense. It’s like trying to characterize H2O by the bytes it takes to store the letters on a computer.
Everything I have said is supported by evidence.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:30, topic:36834”]
Not this topic, but the fossil record is “evidence” in the same sense animation is “evidence” of real life events.
[/quote]
Mock it all you want, the evidence is still there.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:30, topic:36834”]
DNA is not enough to make us humans, hence “human just another ape based on DNA” is wrong.
[/quote]
Besides the fact you can’t quantify your claim at all, you’re putting way too much hope in the 3D structure, ink and other hocus-pocus. DNA is information - no doubt about that - just look at all the genetic diseases. That’s why companies like 23andme are in business, and that’s why a lot of cancer and other research is focused on DNA with all the ACGTs in the right place.
One thing that I repeated several times, yet you completely missed again, is that we are all born fully-formed humans and not half-monkeys, half-rats, or half-bananas. That is also true at all development stages. So we start with a zygote and the maternal womb - a protected environment and end up with a human - that’s Manufacturing, Hardware, and Software (the complexity of which seems to completely escape you). And the maternal womb is itself a product of another zygote and another womb.
So no, 3D structure, hydrogen bonds, epigenetics, and whatnot don’t matter so much at that stage. Monozygote twins are not that different from each other either, and I bet if you take monozygote embryos and develop them in surrogate mothers, they won’t be that much different than those born of their natural mother - someone should try this experiment on chimps, and other animals. I can even see a human natural experiment given that some terminally ill would-be mothers can now opt for embryo transplant in surrogate mothers.
This is the other thing: you cannot logically argue both that DNA is the one and only difference between humans and chimps, and that DNA information is superseded by the 3D structure (which structure?), hydrogen bonds (which ones?) and so on.
I already quantified it in previous posts. Here is some more:
A recent study by Fanucchi et al. indicated that co-regulated genes can form long range chromosomal contacts and that these long-range interactions may regulate these co-regulated genes’ transcription. After knocking down the factors which participate in the formation of the chromosomal contacts, the contacts will lose and these co-regulated genes transcription will not happen (Fanucchi et al., 2013). reference
The DNA molecule bends and brings distant parts of the genome into contact which changes gene expression.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:32, topic:36834”]
One thing that I repeated several times, yet you completely missed again, is that we are all born fully-formed humans and not half-monkeys, half-rats, or half-bananas. That is also true at all development stages. So we start with a zygote and the maternal womb - a protected environment and end up with a human - that’s Manufacturing, Hardware, and Software (the complexity of which seems to completely escape you). And the maternal womb is itself a product of another zygote and another womb.
[/quote]
A chimp is a fully-formed chimp, and it is still ape, still a mammal, and still a vertebrate. The same for humans. We are part of all those same groups.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:32, topic:36834”]
This is the other thing: you cannot logically argue both that DNA is the one and only difference between humans and chimps, and that DNA information is superseded by the 3D structure (which structure?), hydrogen bonds (which ones?) and so on.
[/quote]
I never argued that 3D structure supersedes sequence. They compliment each other.
No, you did not. The impact of molecular structure on information is not quantified anywhere. The only thing quantified is DNA as linear memory - and that’s the one showing 1.2% human-to-chimp difference. But this is the 1 GB that is not sufficient to do anything. You’re not fooling anyone by using the later to justify “human just another chimp”, and the former (which is not quantified!) to justify “DNA is essence of life”. This is ridiculous.
[content removed by moderator]
Then what exactly are you arguing with “3D structure”? Your claim was that “yes, 1 GB is not enough information, but the 3D structure adds enough information (How much exactly? Do quantify!) to make a human with all it takes”. No, you don’t have the facts to make such a claim.
Note: the 1GB of DNA information already accounts for all nucleotides including introns that you guys used to call “junk DNA - vestiges of evolution” nonsense, and that now turn out to have important functions.
Sure would be nice if you explained why the examples I have given you don’t measure up instead of just ignoring them.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:34, topic:36834”]
The only thing quantified is DNA as linear memory - and that’s the one showing 1.2% human-to-chimp difference. But this is the 1 GB that is not sufficient to do anything. You’re not fooling anyone by using the later to justify “human just another chimp”, and the former (which is not quantified!) to justify “DNA is essence of life”. This is ridiculous.
[/quote]
I never said that humans are chimps. I said that we are apes just as we are also primates, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, and vertebrates. You did learn about taxonomy in school, did you not?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:34, topic:36834”]
This just goes to show you can’t or won’t understand what you read.
[/quote]
You are projecting.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:34, topic:36834”]
Then what exactly are you arguing with “3D structure”? Your claim was that “yes, 1 GB is not enough information, but the 3D structure adds enough information (How much exactly? Do quantify!) to make a human with all it takes”. No, you don’t have the facts to make such a claim.
[/quote]
If I stored the letters H2O on a flash drive, would that be the full extent of information in water?
I have been explaining for many days now and you keep going in circles. This is what you sent last. Why don’t you show where (in that article) the information in the 3D structure of the DNA is quantified?[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:35, topic:36834”]
I said that we are apes just as we are also primates, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, and vertebrates. You did learn about taxonomy in school, did you not?
[/quote]
Taxonomy is an artificial human construct - it carries exactly zero biologic information and is totally unrelated to this thread.
Why don’t you explain in your own words what you understand from this (the current topic), and present your counterarguments if you dispute this statement: “Does anyone believe that the differences between humans and chimps can be fully described in 8 MB of data? Scientific presentations that don’t even begin to scratch the surface of this topic take more than that computer storage space. Furthermore, 0.5% of our genome separates us from other humans while 1.2% separate us from bonobos and chimps. The implication is that our differences are more than skin-deep and cannot be explained by our similar genotype. The co-evolution story of chimps and humans that, given our similar genome, seemed plausible for a while, becomes much harder to accept if the genome is far less important than thought.”
Total nonsense! What does this even mean, and how is it related to this topic? Does the DNA store the letters D, N, and A?!? Perhaps H, U, M, A, N?!? Ridiculous.
Note: I think you want to wear me out, but at this point I am staying for the entertainment value.
And I am pretty sure the peanut gallery is hoping for a magic bullet counterargument to kill this topic. But none is forthcoming. That is, of course, assuming no one exercises his/her censorship superpower
At one point, hopefully, they will understand this is not Red Sox v Yankees where you support your home team just because. If you keep losing the logic argument, you cannot go on and support nonsense for ever.
This is just the argument from incredulity. It’s not an evidence based argument, and it’s not scientific. If you think it is scientific, please actually do the science and get it published. Otherwise all you have is empty rhetoric.
