AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: RumraketR

form_srcid: RumraketR

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.144.57.183

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: RumraketR

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'RumraketR%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2012/11/20 14:32:41, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,16:37)
Comparing the genome to computer data storage. In order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer, we need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in a binary format (0 and 1). These 0 and 1 bits are usually grouped together to form a larger unit, with the smallest being a “byte” that represents 8 bits. We can denote each base pair using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11).  Each 2-bit combination would represent one DNA base pair.  A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs.  In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations:

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!


http://bitesizebio.com/article....-genome

is 1.5 Gigabytes more than 500 bits? Then why would we want to go any further than this as you already have the answer before you start.

ANY organism will be over 500 bits.[/quote]
Hello everyone, I've been a lurker here for a few years now and I just have to respond because this could be historical stuff.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly here, Jerry Don Bauer, because according to what I have quoted, you seem to be saying that the quantity of information in a string of symbols is equal to the length of the string divided by the number of possible symbols at each locus? As in the information content is measured in bits and is thus proportional to the length of the sequence?

You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!

In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.

Am I correct in my understanding here?

Date: 2012/11/20 16:18:41, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,15:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,15:51)
We are discussing Complex Specified Information and what makes certain information complex, or not and/or specified or not.

This has little to do with the length of anything or the amount of loci it harbors.

Quote
You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!

In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.

Am I correct in my understanding here?

You are referring to a link I referrenced. The purpose of that link was to show that even a genome contains much more information than the 500 bits upper probability boundary. Therefore, an entire organism most certainly would be over 500 bits and therefore CSI.....


That was all I was pointing out.....I certainly did not want to get into genomic entropy and the like at this point.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,15:51)
We are discussing Complex Specified Information and what makes certain information complex, or not and/or specified or not.

This has little to do with the length of anything or the amount of loci it harbors.

Quote
You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!

In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.

Am I correct in my understanding here?

You are referring to a link I referrenced. The purpose of that link was to show that even a genome contains much more information than the 500 bits upper probability boundary. Therefore, an entire organism most certainly would be over 500 bits and therefore CSI.....

Okay, fair enough, I think I understand. But just to be sure, you agree the quantity of information in the genome there is 1.5 gigabytes? Not CSI, not Entropy, just 1.5 gigabytes of information, and 1.5 gigabytes is more than 500 bits(and 500 bits would be the bound above with the quantity of information would qualify as being CSI). Right?

If my understanding is not correct, could you clarify:
A): How to calculate the quantity of information in an arbitrary string of DNA, for example?

You can use any stretch of DNA you want, like a real world promoter sequence(or mRNA transcript or whatever you like), or just use a small random string for the purpose, like the one I supplied. Anything is fine with me, I just want to make sure that we agree on how to calculate the quantity of information in a string of symbols, like DNA, in bytes.

I understand that the quantity itself is not what makes it Complex or Specified. I just want to make sure we agree on how to calculate the quantity.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,15:51)
That was all I was pointing out.....I certainly did not want to get into genomic entropy and the like at this point.

That's absolutely fine with me, we don't have to delve into entropy or anything. I just want to reach an agreement on the basics, like how to calculate information quantity in stretches of DNA.

That's why I brought up the example you quoted earlier, because you seemed to be using a method that corresponded to length of string divided by number of symbols and reporting the result in bytes.

If this is not how you would calculate information content in a string of symbols, how else? Give an example and I would be most grateful.

Thanks again for your time :)

Date: 2014/09/12 05:19:28, Link
Author: RumraketR
Why is Joe so angry anyway? I can practically feel the spittle here on the other side of the atlantic.

Date: 2016/01/21 02:15:02, Link
Author: RumraketR
Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.

See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).

He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.

Date: 2016/01/22 03:59:11, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:33)
Quote (RumraketR @ Jan. 21 2016,02:15)
Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.

See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: <a href="http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=170215#p170215The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).

He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.

It must be frustrating seing your world view cranked down bits by bits, argument by argument, one after the other, isnt it, Rumraket?
I hope you will get the curve before its too late. Because then you will still enjoy a meaningful life here on earth, and a happy time in eternity.

Did he seriously just write this bafflegab? Somebody tell me I'm being trolled.  :p

Date: 2016/01/22 04:05:33, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2016,20:55)
Otangelo:

 
Quote

the fact that various genetic codes exist, means, common ancestry, bye bye:


Hmmm... what part of the statement that when examined phylogenetically, the alternative codes are in the pattern expected from common descent is Otangelo having difficulty comprehending?

The whole thing. He does not know what a phylogenetic relationship is. He does not know how one is constructed. He does not know about the logic involved, he has never looked into the inferences. He has zero skill or education in even rudimentary logic or reasoning. He does not understand what a prediction is, he does not understand how falsification happens or what it means. He does not understand why it is even important for something to be falsifiable, or to make predictions. All of these concepts are totally foreign to him.

He thinks scientists are like priests, they just read stuff and believe it really hard, then make up rationalizations after the fact to "save" their worldview from disproof.

After all, that is what he does himself and how he thinks his own authority figures work. But he also believes his own authority figures are "more right" and "more trustworthy" than secular/nonbelieving authority figures, because "his" authority figures are infallibly inspired by an omnipotent god.

Date: 2016/03/04 07:29:15, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2016,18:22)

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)
Not only i can't understand it. The whole scientific community can't.

I can. The whole community of evolutionary biology understands it.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)
For obvious reasons. The cell is irreducible complex.

It is an observational fact that irreducibly complex systems routinely evolve.

If there were no irreducibly complex systems in existence, then the theory of evolution would be false, because they are unambigously predicted to result from the evolutionary process. We even know HOW IC systems evolve. They start by NOT being indispensible, but become gradually incorporated into systems and structures that were themselves ALSO once upon a time, dispensible, but have since become indispensible by the same process.


Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)
If even one protein, like topoisomerase is missing, the cell dies.

This is actually false as Larry Moran PROVED to you on this blog with references.

Topoisomerases originated before genomes were so large that DNA winding was a lethal problem, and gradually co-evolved with the expansion of the winding stretches of the genome.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)
Abiogenesis is impossible to the extreme.

Impossibility is a binary property. Something is either impossible or it is not. There is no degree of impossibility. Besides, there is absolutely zero evidence that abiogenesis is impossible and in fact there is evidence from physics that abiogenesis IS possible. According to statistical mechanics, living organisms are just another unlikely microstate of matter. Which means that, statistically speaking, they are still possible, just very very unlikely to arise spontaneously.

But unlikely =/= (that sign means "does not equal") impossible.

I'll repeat for the benefit of your subnormal encephalization:
Unlikely =/= impossible
Unlikely does not equal impossible
Unlikely is not equal to impossible
What is unlikely is not impossible

Abiogenesis by spontaneous generation is only unlikely, it is not impossible.

There are many options that are much much more likely than spontaneous generation. Likelihood depends on already occupied microstates. There could be a gradual progression of microstates from the unliving to the living states. This is strictly speaking also possible according to statistical mechanics.

All of science refutes the assertion that the origin of life is impossible. The origin of life is NOT impossible, the origin of life is possible.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)
But since a creator does not fit your wished world view without God

I would like for there to be a god. I really wish God existed, because I don't want to die. I also want to meet again, long lost and much loved family members. I do not believe in God because I don't want to, I do not believe in God becuase the intellectual and evidential case for the existence of God is too weak to be believed rationally.

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,17:57)
no matter what, the evidence is rejected and neglected.

But you have not brought any evidence. All your arguments suffer form fundamental logical flaws and fallacies. The reason your are failing to produce God-belief in any of us is that your arguments and your evidence is insufficient to justify rational belief.

Date: 2016/03/04 07:35:13, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 03 2016,16:26)
Quote (jeffox @ Feb. 15 2016,11:56)
Some loser quipped, "  
Quote
Keep your self delusion. The cell is too complex to be re-created by man. And to say that the most compex factory on earth does not require a mind to make it, is irrational to the extreme.


And, yet, that's exactly what the evidence shows.  Going against the evidence is irrational.  Show us god, then show us god did it.  Otherwise, you fail.

Show me nothing did it. Otherwise, you fail.

I don't believe that "nothing" did anything. As such, there is a serious issue with you asking us to demonstrate "nothing" doing anything, because you are asking us to evidentially support a proposition none of us hold.

You should learn logic before you engage in debate.

Date: 2016/03/04 07:36:08, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 03 2016,17:22)
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-w....me-from

They evolved gradually.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....comdesc" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....RL=http

Date: 2016/03/18 07:54:15, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Vasha @ Mar. 17 2016,11:23)
Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.

The claim is as closed to expermentally refuted as one can hope for, by the Lenski long-term evolution experiment, where an originally clonal (as in genetically identical) population of cells, run independently as 12 lineages but subjected to the same type of environment for the same amount of time, managed to produce wildly different results in all 12 lineages.

It seems very hard to explain why, if life is following some kind of pre-planned trajectory, it evolves in random directions when tested with genetically identical individuals subjected to the same environmental selective pressures.

No doubt the die-hard believer will come up with some amazing ad-hoc rationalization for this, such as "all paths eventually lead to the same result despite diverging along the way" or some shit. This is just what it is though, ad-hoc rationalizations they are coming up with to avoid conceding their pet theory is falsified.

Heck, even the existence of extant biodiversity seems to constitute a falsification of the claim. Massively ironically, a great question to ask is, if all life and all evolutionary trajectories are destined to produce human-like intelligent organisms, why are there still bacteria/jellyfish/slugs/fungi/rectal-worms/monkeys?

Date: 2016/05/04 06:36:02, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Otangelo @ May 03 2016,19:18)
The key process that produces oxygen in the atmosphere is due to the oxygen-evolving complex (OEC) , which splits water molecules and subsequently releases molecular oxygen. This process, which occurs in photosystem II (PSII), is driven by the conversion of visible light to chemical energy. Electrons oxidize water, which leads to the evolution of molecular oxygen and the release of protons into the thylakoid lumen. This proton gradient is a major contributor to the proton motive force used to biosynthesize ATP from ADP via ATP synthase.

The OEC is composed of a cluster of manganese, calcium and chloride ions bound to extrinsic proteins. In plants there are four (PsbO, PsbP, PsbQ and PsbR). Maintenance of the highly dynamic Mn4CaO5 cluster also requires the delivery of a constant supply of the proper levels of Mn2+ and Ca2+. The mechanism of water oxidation has remained virtually unchanged between green plants and cyanobacteria, and is similar in all higher plants. Simpler mechanisms are unknown.

Each of the extrinsic proteins of plants are ESSENTIAL, and each was tested upon mutated form, and the mechanism was found inefficient, and compromising the OEC function. Furthermore, a water network around the Mn4CaO5 cluster, and D1 protein subunit of PSII are also absolutely necessary. Each protein and the Mn4CaO5 cluster has no function by its own, only, if duly embedded and working in the whole mechanism. It could therefore not provide any survival advantage to the organism, unless everything is set up. Its the same as to ask what good a piston motor would be by its own ? It has no function , unless duly mounted and well matched inside the motor block.

There is no ignorance, but based on the scientific evidence of mutation experiments WE DO KNOW OEC absolutely requires each protein and a precisely arranged Mn4CaO5 cluster fully evolved and set up.

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Larry Moran on this gibberish

Otangelo: Always wrong all the time.

Date: 2016/05/04 07:10:09, Link
Author: RumraketR
Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 13 2016,14:11)
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 13 2016,11:53)
Incredibly improbable things happen All the time.
Improbable does not equal impossible.  Ever.

Asserts facts unsupported by evidence.

That is possibly the dumbest post on the internet. Quite literally.

What amazing bluffoonery. Improbable does not equal impossible.

Improbable directly translates into 'unlikely'. Which is just less likely than 'likely'. Which just means it doesn't happen often, but instead infrequently. But it still happens.  

If something happens 1 in 10 times, then it happens one out of ten times. If it happens a million times less often, it happens one in ten million times. If it happens a trillion trillion trillion trillion times less often, it happens once in every 10 million trillion trillion trillion trillion times. BUT IT STILL HAPPENS.

If it happens one in a quattuorvigintillion googolplex times, then it still happens. Once in every quattuorvigintillion googolplex times.

If it is impossible, then it NEVER happens. It CANNOT happen. In any way.

Date: 2016/12/30 14:17:37, Link
Author: RumraketR
I agree, I don't expect much interesting intellectual output from any of them. But there's still a difference between the complete and utter volitional braindamage one is disposed to receive from phoodoo, fmm and frankie, versus what can on rare occasion at least approach the form of a question borne out of a tiny hint of genuine curiosity from Mung, Sal and... well I think that's it.

 

 

 

=====