Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Biology

_{January 28, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Lecture by Kirk Durston, Biophysics PhD candidate, University of Guelph

[youtube XWi9TMwPthE nolink]

Click here to read the Szostak paper referred to in the video.

HT to UD subscriber bornagain77 for the video and the link to the paper.

Comments

Prof P., and all those that bring up Bayesian probability, you're bluffing. Do the math, or shut up. You are technically right, in that we do need to make assumptions about the a priori probabilities. Obviously if we assume that the probability of ID is zero, and that of chance is one, then P(ID given chance) will be one. But if we start as agnostics and assume that P(ID) = P(chance) = 0.5. and apply bayes rules, then we find P(data given ID) = P(ID given data) and P(data given chance) = P(chance given data). This is why Bayesian probabilities are irrelevant to those who approach the subject neutrally. Now if you assume, a priori, that either chance or ID is more likely, then, to the degree of your skew, the posterior probabilites will also be skewed. So if you say, a priori, chance is a billion times more likely than ID, then the posterior probabilities will also be a billion times higher in favor of chance. And this is where the margins come into play: a billion is merely 10^9. So if (chance given data) = 10^-80, it is now 10^71. To change the odds in favor of chance, you need not only be prejudiced in favor of chance, but prejudiced to an almost infinite degree. p.s. In the above I assumed that chance and ID are mutually exclusive and that there are no other possibilities, that is there is a probability of one for chance or ID. AFAIK nobody in either camp is seriously questioning these assumptions.Bayesian_{January 29, 2009
January
01
Jan
29
29
2009
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

Looks like Durston wiped the floor with PZ in their recent debate at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. You should hear him whine about it over at his blog. Good stuff.Robbie_{January 29, 2009
January
01
Jan
29
29
2009
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

I saw this a while back on the Edinburgh Creationist Group's website, and was disappointed. His functional information simply gives the bits required to distinguish entities capable of performing a function well, from other entities which perform the function (ie - if the functions so easy any random blob can perform it, the information is pretty much zero, since one can pick out any one blob to do it). But he spoils it, as all people making these arguments seem to, by messing up on evolution, by simply defining it away as a random process. In fact, what he does makes little sense. He first defines functional information in a way we're all familiar with from William Dembski's work: it's the improbability of selecting an entity capable of performing the function, or -log2[M/N] where M is the num of entities which can do it and N is the total num of entities. But for evolution, he does something weird; he says that M is 1, and N is the total trials evolution does over 4 billion years, which he gives as 10^42. He doesn't define the function! He's saying that an unknown function exists, there are 10^42 possibilities which won't work, and 1 which will, and evolution can pick it out over four billion years. If that's not a tornado-in-the-junkyard then I don't know what is. What does it have to do with a process whereby multiple replicators with multiple functions undergo natural selection which may add, remove, or change these functions to improve local fitness? I notice, also he's allowed to add up the improbabilities of all functions in a genome to get his 10^80000 figure - but he cripples evolution by giving it only one function. He's doing it wrong.Venus Mousetrap_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

I should have said at the end of my last comment: "One has to show that life is not just one of these few perfect hands but just any old good bridge hand to justify waiving away the numbers."jerry_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

bfast, Prof_P.Olofsson, I strongly disagree and that numbers are the essence of this discussion. To blow this off is to just it blow it off because one wants to and is nothing but hand waiving. Some how this functional complexity had to be built and whether it was piecemeal or in gross steps, it arrived in this world and its structure is an extremely high level of improbability given the number of potential structures of equal complexity. The way this high level of improbability is dismissed is to say that the arrived at solution is just one of a zillion of other possible structures that are equally functional. If it is unique or a member of a very small subset then one has a real job of explaining how this particular needle was found in the hay stack. It's one thing to say there are millions of needles in the hay stack and it won't take much to find one. But if there are this number of needles then find some others. If one cannot find another needle then one has to maybe admit that this is the only needle or that there may be other needles but they are few and hard to find. If there were steps along the way then one has to show that there is a series of subsets that are incredibly large in number and functional. In one of the videos I believe Durston referred to the number of potential proteins that could be functional. This seems like a testable hypothesis either now or in the future whether an arbitrary protein of any length is functional or not. If the numbers are so small at any length then the likelihood of a large number of smaller subset forming are nil let alone the final product which is by definition of many orders of magnitude more complicated. So I am sorry but numbers are extremely important and arbitrary hand waiving is not going to do it. First show that more than one sub set can exist and be functional and is not related to anything in the world and you have only started. You must show that zillions of equally functional subsets must also exist of which all are not related to what exist in the world. Because there must be an almost infinite number of subset to exist in order to justify a slow build up to the one lucky final set that made it through. That is the only way to hand waive away the tyranny of these numbers. To show that it is just one of a near unlimited other possibilities. There are lots of good bridge hands in the deck so a good bridge hand is not hard to get. But there are only a few bridge hands that have 37 high card points and are perfect hands. One has to show that life is not just one of these few good hands but just any old good bridge hand to justify waiving away the numbers.jerry_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

If you want to read about a problem with the functional information measure, as well as the active information measure, I recommend the work of a talented mathematician named William Dembski. Google "how we measure information needs to be independent of whatever procedure we use to individuate the possibilities".R0b_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

According to Durston, he did bring natural selection into account. If such is the case, then he was doing his calculations right.Domoman_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

tribune7 @1, Yeah, I think it's definitely safe to say we won, by a margin of 10 to the 80 thousandth power. =) Awesome video, thanks for sharing!PaulN_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Professor O, now w/regard to the point Kirk Durston made regarding Venter's watermarks. If some other lab came up with a genome and said hey we beat you to it neener, neener. And that genome had all of Venter's watermarks which includes Craig Venter's name. What methodology could we use to show that other lab stole the information from Venter? Is there a methodology we can use to show the other lab's genome did not occur naturally?tribune7_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

As well I agree with Henry Schaefer III, in that you will never find a hypothetical "simpler origin of life". On The Origin Of Life And God - Henry F. Schaefer, III PhD. http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d305934f3a43dd87e4e8 ================== as well, "information" is now shown to be its own independent physical entity with complete transcendent specific dominion over matter/energy in quantum teleportation experiments: "It will ultimately emerge that information is a vital and basic element of the world. Information is not a derivative, but something primary that determines reality. Put dramatically, reality and information is (sic) the same thing." Anton Zeilinger, Leading Expert In Quantum Teleportation ======================================= Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe - Establishing The Theistic postulation and scientific validity Of John 1:1:, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.", By showing "transcendent informations" complete specific dominion of a photon of energy as well as its integral relationship with the definition of a photon qubit. http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f61c0e8fb707e76b0e20 ======================== Conservation Of Information - establishing the overriding law of Conservation of Information using Quantum Teleportation and The First Law Of Thermodynamics - http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=08979112b6474524fbf3 ============================ as well: Evolution Is Not Even A Proper Scientific Theory - The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Dr. Arthur Jones Cortical Inheritance proves the "semi-holistic" nature of information in a cell and its impact on heredity (The Body Plan of living organisms is actually shown to be encoded separate from the DNA code in the membrane area of a cell), Dr. Arthur Jones delivers a crushing blow against the Neo-Darwinian paradigm of Genetic (DNA) Reductionism with Coritical inheritance. http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=26e0ee51239e23041484bornagain77_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

He talks of natural selection in the lecture at a little over the halfway point (I edited for the youtube 10 minute limit): You can see it here: Intelligent Design - Kirk Durston http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xmlbornagain77_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

I'm with Prof_P on this one. The general biological community has long abandoned the idea that even the simplest known life-form just popped into existance. The assumption today is that something vastly simpler preceeded it. If so, then the "random chance" calculation of the likelihood of a 380 protein lifeform popping into existance is irrelevant. Durston totally did not discuss the mathematical challenge of a very simple life-form, using natural selection, could have developed into the simplest life-form we know today. As such, most of his lecture was simply irrelevant. I do find some value in the mathematical concept of functional information and "fits" . However, our calculations must be based upon natural selection, not the blind search.bFast_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Domoman, What numbers?Prof_P.Olofsson_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Prof_P.Olofsson, How do the numbers come out then, if you calculate it?Domoman_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

The claims in his examples show classic confusion of conditional probabilities, for example: “It was about 10^80000 times more probable that ID was required…” In other words, he claims that P(ID given data) >> P(Chance given data) when all that he can attempt to compute is P(Data given Chance). For anything else, he would need prior probabilities, apply Bayes' rule, etc. In other words, he is making a Bayesian claim without applying Bayesian methods. But don't take my word for it; just read Dembski's "Elimination vs Comparison" paper, page 7, (1) and (2) with which I completely agree. It feels like this issue should have been sorted out and dismissed once and for all long ago. Dear tribune, there is no way that this talk represents PhD work at Guelph!Prof_P.Olofsson_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Sorry, I meant *Take a look at*. Must have walked away and then come back to finish my sentence haha. Such is the burden of work getting in the way of my UD reading. =PPaulN_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Hahah, good one Enezio. I'll definitely have to take a watch this when I get home after class tonight. Reading the few responses alone is quite exciting.PaulN_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

My goodness! Is Kirk wearing a bullet-proof jacket?Enezio E. De Almeida Filho_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Might be about time that Dawkins concedes to those aliens... lolDomoman_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Interesting to note this paragraph from his conclusion: " The formalism also points to strategies, such as increasing the concentration and/or diversity of molecular agents, that might maximize the effectiveness of chemical experiments that attempt to replicate steps in the origin of life."Laminar_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

I would say, we won. Far less certain than the intelligent design of life, however, is will Kirk Durston get his PhD?tribune7_{January 28, 2009
January
01
Jan
28
28
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply