An Important Message
by MikeGeneIcdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid It deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and yuo awlyas thghout slpeling was ipmorantt.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
That's, like, wierd! By the middle of the paragraph I could read it at near full speed. However, I have found that my teachers offer a lot of value in teaching me to spell; computer systems are far fussier than human brains are.
Comment by bFast — February 1, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 am
In the words of a pointy ear'ed fellow, "fascinating"
Comment by Guts — February 2, 2007 @ 1:40 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 am
I can't take the credit for coming up with this. Someone I know in the real world gave it to me and I failed to ask where he got it.
But it brings up an interesting parallel. In some way, the cell is like the human brain. In the cell, the precise arrangement of every amino acid is not important either, as we know the same function can be elicited by a range of amino acid sequences.
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 4:49 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 am
Oaky, I did smoe gogiolng and fnoud the scuore of tihs mgassee. It can be fnoud hree. But to hvae smoe rael fun wtih tihs, go hree. It's a lot eaeisr tahn fgihintg the slepl cehcekr on yuor wrod porargm!
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 4:57 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:17 am
Actually, even in modern digital engineering, the same is somewhat true. When data is written and read from your CD, it has numerous errors, but error correction takes place. This feature of engineering is known as robustness and fault tolerance. Codon usage seems optimized for some level of fault tolerance through synonymous mutations. I would not be surprised at other levels of robustness in the protein.
However, as in digital systems, the faults can only go so far, thus, simultaneosly functional proteins still occupy a small space of possible configurations. Even a music CD with all its errors occupies a small space of all possible configurations.
If nano-engineered parts didn't have fault tolerance and error correction, we probably wouldn't be alive. Part of the reason for this is that quantum effects gaurantee that information destroying noise is at every corner. Thus, strategies must be in place to combat the effects of noise.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2007 @ 10:17 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
I could not agree with you more Salvador. If one traces evolution back in time there comes a point at which genomes would not accomodate the fault tolerance and error correction that combat the effects of noise. At that point the interesting question to me is can adaptive change outpace error catastrophe?
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2007 @ 11:41 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Fscantiniag.
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2007 @ 11:57 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
"By the middle of the paragraph I could read it at near full speed."
Me too.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 2, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
MikeGene, "Oaky, I did smoe gogiolng and fnoud the scuore of tihs mgassee. It can be fnoud hree. But to hvae smoe rael fun wtih tihs, go hree. It's a lot eaeisr tahn fgihintg the slepl cehcekr on yuor wrod porargm!"
Now this is getting wierd, because I was almost all the way thru that paragraph before I realized what was going on.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 2, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Wow. I thought it was just my leftover dyslexic tendencies that allowed me to read without trouble. Hmmm…
Comment by Joy — February 2, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Bradford –
See Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer.
Comment by johnnyb — February 2, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Thanks for that johnnyb.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I think context probably plays a bigger role.
sidepr = pretty confusing by itself, regardless of the placement of the first and last letter.
however,
I am arfaid of taht sidepr taht is carlwing on the wlal.
So, regardless of the continuity of 1st and last letter placement, I think the role played by context is more important.
You could probably test this further by placing random numbers in the words that are scrabbled (again, with consistent placement of 1st and last word).
Kind of like a funky Stroop test.
Comment by Doug — February 2, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Doug, "So, regardless of the continuity of 1st and last letter placement, I think the role played by context is more important." I think you are very right.
I have developed a career in the field of Optical Character Recognition (OCR). If there is one area where OCR suffers badly, it is in its inability to seriously factor in context. In truth, I bet you could randomly dispose of 20% of the words in this paragraph, and people would still understand it.
Also in the context of "In the cell, the precise arrangement of every amino acid is not important either, as we know the same function can be elicited by a range of amino acid sequences", I think we find that some genes are much more amiable to change than others. Some appear to not change at all over deep time, suggesting that their sequences are very important.
What fascinates me most is the discovery of untraconserved sequences that can be deleted from organisms with no detected deleterious effects.
Comment by bFast — February 2, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
That question was explored for mammals. See Nachman's U-Paradox. It would be an interesting scientific research project to extend Nachman's U-Paradox to the primordial genome. If we accept ReMine's Biotic message hypotehsis, I would expect that we will find a similar paradox for primordial genomes and error catastrophe.
For the reader's benefit, the way error correciton is done is by reliance on the fact the whole system is not too badly damaged. There are limits to error correction capabilities. For example, in the opening post, the text could be so garbled that error recovery is impossible. Same is true for biological systems or Compact Discs.
In no way does fault tolerance and robustness imply that functional proteins are highly probable. They are only a little more probable because some amino acid sites can tolerate a limited number of mutations. However there will be a point of more changes lead to error catastrophe and hence the protein will no longer be functional. Funcitonal proteins are still highly improbable without design….
From an ID perspective, it might be helpful to identify the archetypal form that was part of the original design. That is to say, we ought to be able to take Mike Gene's paragraph and reconstruct what it would optimally look like. The is a corresponding issue in biology and this has medical applications.
An interesting ID research project is to reverse engineer what the error correction strategies are. We can thus have a dictionary of optimal spellings and configurations.
Solexa technology may go a long way in helping us do this. See: Solexa: A development which may lead to measuring claims of ID proponents. I believe comparative sequencing will lead to the ability to sythesis the theoretical archetypal form the Intelligent Designer had in mind. This has benefit in medical technology. We already do this to some extent. We describe someone is sick partly through comparison with other healthy individuals and the state of the individuals when they are not sick.
Natural selection is a poor lense to identify archetypal forms (being healthy is an archetypal form). That's why anti-IDists view sickle cell anemia as something of an adaptation rather than seeing the obvious, that it is disfunction that was reinforced in the genomes by malaria…..
Our ability to do error correciton is because we have an awareness of archetypal forms, and when there are deviations from that form that are small we can do a reconstruction. Achetypal forms are specifications. When physical objects conform or approximate a complex specification, the object exhibits specified complexity.
Salvador
PS
I should note, Michael Denton did research on archetypal forms. See IDthink: Denton on Protein Folds: Implications for structural homology. Though I reject some of Denton's conclusions, he was right as far as the idea of Platonic archetypal forms.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hi Sal,
I didn't think Denton still held to the typological notion of archetypes any more.
I believe that he now thinks that evolution can cross orders and classes; opposed to what he thought in Evolution:T.I.C.
Comment by Doug — February 2, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Hi Doug.
I think Denton still does accept platonic forms even though he accepts common ancestry. If you have his 2004 writings in Dembski's book Uncommon Dissent you'll see his advocacy of Platonic Forms.
He does believe that one form can cross to be another. Consider that Butterflies occupy two plantic forms: pupa stage where its a worm, and then flying stage where it's a butterfly. In theory I suppose pre-programmed evolution could morph one creature to another (especially when we look at caterpillars transform themselves to butterflies). I suppose Denton has comparable notions of teleological evolution.
In anycase, I would like to point out, error correction has little meaning if one has no conception of an archetypal form to which the error is identified. More reasons why biology is best understood via design metaphors versus differential reproductive success. There are probably platonic forms to which mis-spelled proteins ought to conform. Mis-spelled proteins however can still be used by the cell as long as the mis-spelling is not too severe.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Hi Sal,
Thanks for explaining that.
But I'm still confused with Denton's stance (current stance). If you accept common ancestry what use does the typological view hold?
I recall Denton stating his idea of equidistance. One member of a class is no more 'like' that class than any other member. Also, no member of class A is any more like a member of class B than any other member of class A – equidistance between classes.
I just don't see how this view can be salvaged if he now ascribes to common ancestry.
Unless the hypothetical archetype of each class (or order) has it's own unique common ancestry. Possibly melding the idea of front-loading with typology.
That just seems like alot of baggage.
Comment by Doug — February 2, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Salvador,
The key is that the information was already contained in the initial form – evolution "proper" says that is not necessary.
Comment by Douglas — February 2, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Having read Denton's three offerings to the general public, "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", "Nature's Destiny" and his chapter in "Uncommon Dissent", (in chronological order) I feel qualified to chime in.
I think that the message of Nature's Destiny is significantly over-read. Though Denton appears to pledge allegiance to an unguided evolution from the non-living to life as we know it, I sugget that he not so much accepts this, as acknowledges its possibility. I hold this view based upon Denton's clear re-endorcement of "Evolution…" in his chapter in Uncommon Dissent.
I believe that the heart of Nature's Destiny is the extension of the strong anthropic principle into biology. Though Denton makes an excellent argument that the strong anthropic principle extends into biology, though he implies that the strong anthropic principle might be strong enough to have forced the outcome that has taken place, I don't believe that he is necessarily convinced that agency did not also occur.
Comment by bFast — February 2, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
If one believes in pre-programed macro evolutionary change it can work. Denton was content avoid resolving the problem you point out. I think he has an intense philosophical resistance to the idea of special creation ( he called creationism "cultic"). Denton was a creationist in his youth before becoming a Darwinian before becoming what his is today (a teleological evolutionist).
If teleological evolution proceeds via punctuated hopeful monsters then there can be typological forms and common ancestry. Otto Shindlewolf described such an example:
Of course I know what some may think of Otto's idea, but I suppose it can work in theory. Again, look at the radical transformation of a wormy caterpillar into a butterfly. A leap from a reptile to bird does not seem so outrageous if the evolution had been pre-programmed. Do I believe that's what happened? No. On the otherhand I don't consider it a truly awful speculation like I do other speculation floating out there…
Agreed, but I don't make a big deal of it lest I offend pro-ID evolutionists.
In any case, in deference to Mike's thread, perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere?
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Good point, Sal.
Sorry Mike.
Comment by Doug — February 2, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Doug:
I agree and think this is a good point. This also applies inside the cell. Here's an old essay that touches on this in the section, Tangential Addendum.
There is another lesson from this example "“ our "observations" of the world are not passive and instead entail a form of active, mental probing.
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
February 4th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Fault tolerance? Error correction?
Don't let Salvador Cordova or other IDists here that. They'll point out that in irreducibly complex systems even the slightest deviation will produce results fatal to an organism . . .
What? That was Cordova? Really? Did he realize he had no control over his own petard?
Comment by edarrell — February 4, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
February 4th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Fault tolerance? Error correction?
You don't know what they mean?
Don't let Salvador Cordova or other IDists here that.
You mean hear that?
They'll point out that in irreducibly complex systems even the slightest deviation will produce results fatal to an organism . . .
A brilliant parody of Behe.:roll:
What? That was Cordova? Really? Did he realize he had no control over his own petard?
Worry about being hoisted by your own.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
February 4th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
eddarrell:
It's ironic that when it comes right down to it, most ID critics can't really describe ID concepts correctly.
Comment by Guts — February 4, 2007 @ 9:29 pm