Science Forums - Biology

Does a genome have entropy

Larv — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:01:47 GMT

My definition of entropy has been posted in another thread: "Entropy is a measure of the number of internal states a system can have without looking any different to an outside observer."

My definition is a shameful plageriazation of Stephen Hawking's own definition of entropy, such as the entropy of a black hole: The entropy is a measure of the number of internal states (ways it could be configured on the inside) that a black hole could have without looking any different to an outside observer, who can only observe its mass, rotation, and charge. (2001, The Universe in a Nutshell, p. 63).

As such, why couldn't we say that a genome has entropy? A measure of a genome's number of states that it could be configured on the inside would be a measure of its active allelic combinations, because on the outside that genome will look like any undifferentiated member of its respective species. From the outside we can observe only its general features (I don't know if they would be equivalent to "mass, rotation, and charge," but I'm constantly tempted to speculate).

If we looked at a genome as a dissipative structure we might be able to effectively model its information structure, too. And if this were defensible then we could discuss genomes in meaningful terms that express important features like complexity, capacity, ascendancy, redundancy, and average mutual information.

(So far as I know, this is the first suggestion of how Shannon's information theory could be usefully applied to genomics. I'm still playing around with the idea.)

Do you think a genome could have (or dissipate) entropy as I have defined it above?

Paternity test

johnperry — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:29:42 GMT

My friend ordered from the site [spam link removed] a special kit for DNA testing at home. He took his own samples and they were sent to the laboratory. He received the results of his paternity test in five days. He said that the service was very satisfying and that the results are very precise and the company promises full confidentiality. I find it very interesting that a DNA test is doable at home these days.

Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

epitome — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:27:04 GMT

[Moderator's Note: this thread consists of posts moved from the Another Darwin Assault thread]

Darwins theories do have trouble standing up to light of scientific laws . if one wants to concder that an attack
they have their right to that opinion same as we do about Darwin theories.

Lutheran Science Institute (link removed)

Does masturbation decrease metabolism/cause the division of fatty tissue to increase?

Gardamorg — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:14:49 GMT

I am well aware that chronic masturbation causes exhaustion, impotence and a poor performance athletically for me in particular, but when I masturbate chronically, something else happens, I become violent, depressed AND I get a mean sweet tooth along with a bad case of the munchies the next morning, I am so hungry and tired and exhausted and mentally effected that I become violent and my grades decline whenever I go on a masturbation bendge.

I know masturbation causes all of the above except a constant strong compulsive urge to eat the sweetest foods I can find until my stomach can't hold anymore, and I'm still hungry.

I'm addicted to ejaculation and my doctors say it's healthy and normal, I know that if they saw how much I did it, or if they'd listen to me when I say I do it more than usual, they would reconsider if they had any right to be a doctor what-so-ever, but my parents and my doctors don't stop it.

Whats worse is that in order to compensate for a lack of sexual potency due to constant ejaculation, I have once in a great while surfed the web for pornography of an obsene and perverted nature just to think about something new, it's a terrible thing. And perhaps the most severe of my chronic symptoms is that I'm not innocent anymore, I've seen and done things so deragatory that I can't help but peek into the obsene acts that can be performed in sex whenever I'm stimulated in any emotional way.

Another Darwin assault

lemit — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:25:59 GMT

What do you think of this "Soapbox" piece--Soapbox being kind of the equivalent of an op-ed?

Quote:

This year, the world recognizes two milestones around the life of naturalist Charles Darwin: his birth in 1809 and the 150th anniversary of his pivotal book, "The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

While Darwin was trained in the seminary and not sciences, he was a keen observer and recorded those observations on his voyage on the Beagle from 1831 to 1836.

Today, Darwin is universally recognized as the father of evolution, the theory that all life evolved from a common living ancestor, which in turn evolved from nonliving matter. Our public schools and universities have built their science teaching and research presuppositions upon this idea that "molecules turned into men over time" and treat it as fact. Darwin believed this to be true until he died, but he didn't have much of the details worked out, rather just "one long argument" for it. Darwin also saw his theory as being a comforting replacement for a belief in God because he didn't like the idea of hell, nor could he reconcile suffering in the world with the idea of a good God.

Darwin's legacy is both an advancement in our understanding of the natural world and the human disaster of atheistic regimes like Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Naturalism presupposes that no supernatural force was involved in our origins and thus gives us no purpose, positions man free from the laws of God, and makes man merely an animal, seeking his own pleasure at the expense of others.

Scientists have imposed atheistic presuppositions on the explanation of origins - a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The teaching of evolution as fact in science classrooms is also wrong because observational data do not support the theory.

Today's science textbooks teach evolution as fact, when already known facts and laws directly contradict it. In high school biology textbooks, we're told that life can only come from life (the Law of Biogenesis), which Louis Pasteur proved via experiment, yet in following chapters we are told that "life arose" from nonlife 3.5 billion years ago. We're told that species slowly morph into more complex new species over long periods of time, yet this has never been observed, even after observing tens of thousands of generations of bacteria.

I believe that our culture has been deceived into thinking that evolution can explain life's origins when the facts prove that it cannot. Life's information, complexity, interdependence and sustainability are much better explained by the history in Genesis. The facts of science back this up. Dr. Rob Carter will visit Fort Collins this week to share the latest findings in the human genome and how the story of creation, the catastrophe of the flood and the dispersal of the people all line up consistently with the data of human genetics and fit much better than the evolutionary scenario. If this interests you, come hear Dr. Carter speak at 3 p.m. Friday in the North Ballroom of Lory Student Center at Colorado State University.

And if you can't make that but are interested in the topic of creation/evolution and how we can all work together to have science stay connected to truth, e-mail me at scottelderco@gmail.com and I'll be happy to talk with you.

Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 29, 2009

When I helped with a Soapbox essay for this same paper a few months ago, we spent several weeks checking facts and rewriting our essay (about biochar) so it succeeded logically and the general public could understand what we were talking about. The newspaper staff itself has a long-standing tradition of not bothering to read what is in the paper. Or at least that is the assumption that has developed over the years.

Several years ago this newspaper asked me to conduct training sessions for their staff. I very carefully looked through a few editions and declined their request. There were too many things I had learned my first month in journalism school that the editors apparently never learned, either in school or in life. I didn't know how to get to a starting point.

But disregarding the paper it's published in, what do you think about the substance of this particular attack on Darwin?

Thanks.

--lemit

One of a kind biology exhibits in my house

brandon429 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:28:39 GMT

I thought these bring good contribution to a few areas of biology study, mainly because they are not found anywhere else in the world so the few principles keeping them running are soundly repeatable... and this makes for good science not just novelty in my opinion hope you like my science and music zone

the video:

YouTube - 1 Gallon Saltwater Aquarium and Globe...