Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft


"Wall Of Sleep" <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:TiqHf.1655$7C3.1396@xxxxxxxxxxx
Deadrat wrote:
"Wall Of Sleep" <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fs6Hf.55$Lr.14@xxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

No, corruption means a "change" basically. Using a language analogy,
changing the letters in any sentence is a "corruption" of that sentence
- whether it changes the meaning or not. Sometimes one change can
completely destroy the meaning, sometimes it makes little difference,
and rarely it makes for a completely different meaning.


I think I understand now. You have been seduced by your analogy, which
like all analogies, is only as useful as it is exact. When you say that a text
has been "corrupted," you mean changed from the original, "true" text. We
know we have such a text because we have the assurances of the author as
to what the text is and what the text means. Thus if we hear the actor playing
Hamlet say

To flee or not to flee. That is the question.

then that is a corruption of a text that we know is about suicide not about running
away.

With an organism, there is no such true copy. There is only the DNA of a
surviving organism. A change to that organism's DNA is simply a change for
good, bad, or indifferent.


I think that's a bit misleading. The DNA sequence is changed, therefore
there are pre and post mutation sequences. They can be compared.

Of course they can be compared, but unless we know what specificity
means, we can't say whether one is more specific than the other.


To improve on your analogy, suppose we have a play in which the actors make
random changes to the text. There isn't expected to be a standard text, but the
critics judge each night's performance (with attendant changes). If the critics like
the changes, they write glowing reviews and audiences attend: those changes stay.
If the critics don't like the changes, they pan the changed version, audiences stay
away, and those versions close.

Let's examine two lines from Thursday's performace.

Alice: Bob is true, kind and brave.
Cathy: Bob is actually one of those things.

On Friday, the dialog goes like this:

Alice: Bob is true, kind, and brave.
Cathy: Bob is actually none of those things.

This is a one-letter change. It's hard to say it's a corruption, since no one expects
there to be a standard version of the play. The only thing that counts is the reviews.
Is the changed text more or less specific? True, Cathy's line means something
different on Friday than it did on Thursday, but that's all you can say.


First, any change is a corruption of the original.
In that example the specificity has not changed though, as there is
essentially "equal" meaning, precision and detail.

There is a change from Thursday's performance, which is just one in a long
string of slightly different plays. There is no "original." There are two different,
intelligible English meanings, but without a definition of "specificity," I don't see
how you can say that the two performances are equally specific. One might
envision, say, that for Cathy to say that Bob is true or kind or brave has a much
different implication for the later acts than were she to say that Bob is none of
these things. For the purposes of the analogy, however, the only thing that matters
is what the critics like.

However what if this
was the change:

Alice: Bob is true, kind, and brave.
Cathy: Bob is actually fne of those things.

Meaning is lost. Precision, detail and exclusiveness are also reduced.
Therefore there is a loss of specificity.


Meaning is lost because you insist that the English semantics is important.
But in the DNA analogy the only things that's important is what the critics
say. Also note that although fne isn't an English word, what matters is how
Cathy pronounces it. The text is the DNA, but the performance is the
expressed protein (if you will).


When

bacteria mutate to become resistant to an antibiotic, is that a corruption?

See above.
Another example is the bacterial antibiotic resistance where the
attachment point for the antibiotic becomes corrupted in the bacteria.
This is one of the most common forms of mutated bacterial resistance. It
works because the antibiotic has a very specific target within the cell.
This attachment point changes shape because of a mutation and the
antibiotic can no longer attach there - thus - antibiotic resistance.
Of course nothing else can attach there either, so the cell loses that
function.


But the only thing that matters is whether more bacteria survive because
resistance increases the survival rate more than the change to the attachment
site decreases survival rate.


This is a loss of specificity since the sequence that coded for the
attachment point became damaged and the attachment point is no longer
functional.


You're using loaded words here. The attachment point has changed. The
"damage" done may be overwhelmed by the "benefit" that accrues from
acquiring resistance. If this is a "loss of specificity" that you say cannot
bring a gain, how do we account for the better survival rate of resistant
bacteria?


I didn't say that no gains can come from a loss of specificity. I said
that mutations rarely (if ever) increase specificity.

Then I'm still confused. If the attachment point changes, why isn't this a
change to the more specific function of "repelling" the antibiotic. The change
needn't alter the function of the pre-mutation protein that has the site.

It really is a whole different argument.
If mutations rarely (if ever) produce a more specific coding, then how
did all these extremely specific functions come into being?

By natural selection.

You have to realize that there are *trillions* of specialized functions
coded for in life's various genomes (throughout history). Every one of
them is (supposedly) the result of a series of random mutations.

I gather from your argument that you think that the path to specialized
functions simply happened, one step after another. That's not how it
works. Many branches are attempted at once; the environment prunes
those that don't work

All
life is (supposedly) descended from a lifeform that was simple enough to
(supposedly) spring into existence from non-life. We're talking about
trillions upon trillions of favorable mutations that would have *had to*
increase specificity in order to create these functions where they were
previously non-existent.
Where is the evidence that random mutations are capable of this?

I still don't know what specificity means unless it is the survival rate.
The evidence comes from genetics and population biology.

<snip>

Without knowing how to measure specificity given various changes, you're
not going to be able to make any definitive conclusions.


I think it can be measured. It does require knowing what the pre and
post mutated sequences are though.

Then you're going to have to come up with the measure. Is a parasite
more or less specific than its host? The parasite must surely have more
"specific" functions to invade its host but fewer "specific" functions since
it may rely on its host's functions.

With your analogy, I can get an intuitive idea of what you're talking about.
But I can't get an operational understanding. That is, I wouldn't know what
to do if I were comparing two gene sequences to find which was more
specific. Perhaps some math would help me here.


I think what you're asking for is beyond my area of expertise (as far as
the math and such). I'm speaking in general terms, about things that (I
think) are fairly intuitive.


To be able to make any testable claims, general, intuitive terms just aren't
good enough. It is intuitive to me that things in motion tend to come to rest.
That's my experience in the world. My intuition is wrong.


Perhaps. But these things are testable. It seems to me that establishing
whether a sequence is more or less specific is also testable.

Establish away.



Terms such as "specificity" and "corruption" have no hidden meanings.
Their definitions are common knowledge and my use of the terms shouldn't
require further definition.


Terms such as "specificity" and "corruption" have no meaning at all in science
unless you can give an operational definition.


Perhaps if I was a geneticist, I'd be able to give you more precise,
specific definitions. Somehow though, the fact that my definitions are
not specific enough for you, makes me think you already grasp the concept!

I have an inkling of the concept, but like the proposition "things in motion come
to rest in their natural places," I just don't think it's right.

Deadrat


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... - whether it changes the meaning or not. ... then that is a corruption of a text that we know is about suicide not about running ... Of course they can be compared, but unless we know what specificity ... If mutations rarely produce a more specific coding, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... - whether it changes the meaning or not. ... Of course they can be compared, but unless we know what specificity ... Bob is actually one of those things. ... The human heart did _not_ get this way because natural selection ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... - whether it changes the meaning or not. ... Of course they can be compared, but unless we know what specificity ... Bob is actually one of those things. ... The human heart did _not_ get this way because natural selection ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... - whether it changes the meaning or not. ... Of course they can be compared, but unless we know what specificity ... Bob is actually one of those things. ... The human heart did _not_ get this way because natural selection ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... - whether it changes the meaning or not. ... then that is a corruption of a text that we know is about suicide not about running ... Of course they can be compared, but unless we know what specificity ... Bob is actually one of those things. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading