Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution

On Jul 4, 5:36 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:05 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

The amount of genomic difference between chimps and humans is about
what one would expect *if* the entire difference were due to fixation
of selectively neutral traits (in the 97% of our genomes that is
relatively sequence-irrelevant). Actually, the amount of difference
is a little less than that expectation. That is because of
selection. Most selection is selection *against* change. The number
of sites that differ between chimp and human that can be clearly
identified as having a selective pressure *for* change can be numbered
to be in the range of 50 or so sites (none a protein coding region).

What is 97% of 2 billion if there are 2 billion bits of information in
a strand of DNA?

The haploid human genome is about 3 billion nucleotides long, not 2
billion. Meaning that us diploids have twice that number. And the
DNA is not in a single strand, but divided into 23 chromosomes in the
haploid genome (that's 23 pairs, or 46, in the diploid).

Thats 40 million bits of information.

97% of 2 billion is not 40 million by any math I am aware of. That
97% is a rough estimate of the amount of DNA that has no effective
sequence constraint because it does not code for proteins (or some
regulatory sequences). So 3% would be the measure of the 'bits' that
have some constraint. 3% of *3* billion is about 90 million
nucleotides. Since this is the part under some sequence constraint
only because it encodes protein, even this part is not under severe
constraint, because much of protein sequence can change without undue
consequence.

We are not like monkeys, and
whoever wrote that 40 million bits of code would tell you that nature
by itself, cannot write a 40 million bit meaningful essay by random
chance, by merely producing random characters, as you would suggest.

The part that is under strong constraint is almost identical in humans
and chimps. Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in
only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human
proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp
protein. No one wrote the DNA; it was passed on from parent to child
in both lineages from a nearly identical sequence in the last common
ancestor. The relative *lack* of difference in coding regions even
compared to the small total difference (almost all selectively
neutral, meaning that it is without functional effect) is due to the
conservative nature of selection.


If you are suggesting that you still believe in garbage DNA well thats
not what recent studies suggest. There is no junk DNA. It is just that
people do not know what it is used for.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/jhmi-jdm032306.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/sumc-dn041907.php

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DNA and Information
    ... offered one reason for rejecting the idea of information in DNA as ... well advised to recognise the fact and not to project intentionality ... protein sequences and enzymes. ... And that means that a DNA sequence ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DNA and Information
    ... offered one reason for rejecting the idea of information in DNA as ... well advised to recognise the fact and not to project intentionality ... protein sequences and enzymes. ... And that means that a DNA sequence ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
    ... to be in the range of 50 or so sites (none a protein coding region). ... DNA is not in a single strand, but divided into 23 chromosomes in the ... haploid genome. ... sequence constraint because it does not code for proteins (or some ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
    ... to be in the range of 50 or so sites (none a protein coding region). ... DNA is not in a single strand, but divided into 23 chromosomes in the ... haploid genome. ... sequence constraint because it does not code for proteins (or some ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-beneficial Gaps
    ... majority of possible protein sequences are "non-viable". ... selection simply excludes such sequences from being searched. ... certainly can search regions of non-viable protein sequence space. ... sequence space can be reached by a single mutation from some pre- ...
    (talk.origins)