Jump to content
Science Forums

DNA and Information


questor

Recommended Posts

some interesting information for DNA lovers.

 

A: Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:

 

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

 

The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:

 

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

 

"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."

 

Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.

 

No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

 

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

 

article from the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While DNA may be a code, it in itself is not really information. Just as an alphabet is a code, the information is the combined result of the letters and not really intrinsic upon the code itself. Just as Cyrillic and Greek alphabets differ, they can still impart pretty much the same information. The fact that there is a code is really unimorptant, IMO. DNA is nothing more than the letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DNA is a template type molecule from which every protein that makes up a cell or multicellullar lifeform can be derived ,via mRNA, etc.. But it is not easy to make a viable cell starting with the DNA alone. Most cells don't even use the entire DNA except during DNA duplication. If one started with DNA and made all the possible proteins along its length, one would have a lot of protein but not a viable cell.

 

This observation tells us that there is also some sort of analogous memory capacitance within all the rest of the (daughter) cell, which helps differntiate and regulate the DNA to the needs of the cell. The DNA is sort of like a salad bar with all the ingredients. The rest of the cell in conjunction with the effects of the environment will help put together plates of DNA salad bar combinations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

>>No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information

 

The first thing I would point to in response to this statement would be DNA. Are you saying that DNA is not natural? What evidence do you have of that?

 

Information storage (if you want to call it that) in DNA is fascinating, whether natural or not. Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A: Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA.

This may be to minor to mention, but I belive that Crick won his prize for discovering the structure of DNA. DNA had already been discovered and was already belived to be responsible for the heredity of traits. Watson and Crick (and others) just merely provided a structure and, hence, a probable mechanism for heredity and replication.

 

No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information.

 

THis is a completely fasle statement. In fact, quite the opposite is true. EVERY molecule in nature posesses information. I think that your statement relies on a misunderstanding of the word "information." Information is, simply put, structure beyond that expected for a completely random process. If there is any order in a system, then information about that system can be extracted.

 

For instance, take the molecule Methane (CH4). What does this molecule tell us? Well, at the very least it tells us that there is one carbon and four hydrogens present per atom -- such structure requires some degree of order. Thus, if we had a system entirely composed of methane, we would know that it is roughly 1/4 hydrogen by weight and 3/4 carbon. Also, we know that in the timescale that we observe it, if it does not change to another chemical, that methane must be either kenetically or thermodynamically favored. And so on.

 

In the same vein, DNA contains structure. This stucture (as it is not completely random) MUST contain information. How the cell "chooses" to utalize this structure is its own decision. However, the information is there to be exploited.

 

The interesting thing from all this is that it is not the information in DNA that is so important/cool. All molecules contain information. Rather, it is the ability of DNA to impose its order on the system around it (ie. one strand of DNA can use the order of its primary structure to impose both secondary, tertiary, and quatenary structure upon both itself and another peice of DNA -- we call the usual results double stranded, double helixed DNA). It is this ablity that allows for DNA to replicate and, thus, allows for it to serve as the source for heridety of genes.

 

I think that is about it. Any claim that moleucles do not contain information must stem from an incorrect (scientifically) use of the word information. Perhaps this is not what you ment, however. If so, would you mind providing a more strict definition of the way you ment to use information? That way, perhaps, I can adress your points more directly.

 

Cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooooohhhh...

 

I see fertile soil for another endless Intelligent Design debate!

 

Before we spiral down that route, can this serve as a *very* early warning to stick to the topic?

 

I know, I know - I'm being incredibly anal right now, stomping down heavily on transgressions yet to materialize. But believe me, as the old-timers here will attest, I don't want to have to move a potentially promising thread to the dungeons of neverending repetitive circular arguments and false analogies.

 

If you do want to contribute to an ID debate, however, go and look it up under the "Theology" forums.

 

Thanks, and thanks also for letting me be a pain in the butt.

 

Boerseun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Before we spiral down that route, can this serve as a *very* early warning to stick to the topic?

 

Looks like the topic is DNA and Information. You're the one that brought up Intelligent Design. A freudian slip, I would think.

 

I don't want to have to move a potentially promising thread to the dungeons of neverending repetitive circular arguments and false analogies.

 

Yeah, you're right. Who wants to be subjected to the truth anyway?It's so boring.

 

If you do want to contribute to an ID debate, however, go and look it up under the "Theology" forums.

 

Wait a minute… since when does Intelligent Design belong in the "Theology" forum? In a recent discussion in the Theology forum, Infamous was suggesting we move the Intelligent Design thread to some other forum because it doesn't belong in the "Theology" forum.

 

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here… it's the same tired, worn-out cliché that Intelligent Design isn't science, so let's push it off into some nebulous fantasy land forum where we don't have to confront it.

 

I gotta hand it to you, you guys are persistent. Persistently wrong, but persistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While DNA may be a code, it in itself is not really information.

 

Pardon me, but isn't this akin to, having misplaced some item, saying "It's not lost, I just don't know where it's at?"

 

Codes, in this context, convey information. Language conveys information using a system of symbols, conventions and sequence specificity. Codes do exactly the same thing. Thus, at thesaurus.com you will find that code and language are synonyms. To the extent the two differ in meaning at all, it may be that "code" more often has the connotation of being "secret". But language is language whether it's secret or not, (after all, the English language is "secret" to anyone not familiar with it) and language conveys information.

 

Just as Cyrillic and Greek alphabets differ, they can still impart pretty much the same information. The fact that there is a code is really unimorptant, IMO. DNA is nothing more than the letters.

 

Then written language, also, is nothing more than letters. Ooops… oh yeah, I forgot… written language is nothing more than letters arranged in a specific sequence according to specific set of rules in order to convey a specific message. You're right, virtually the same message can be conveyed in almost any language. But languages were all designed by intelligent agents, and that's why they work.

 

DNA is the letters, alright. But just like language they are sequenced according to an independent set of rules or conventions in order to convey a message, or more appropriately, a set of instructions. Ergo, DNA is much more than just letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRoutMac, I also hope that you don't bring Intelligent Design vs. Evolution again in here. Like you said the topic is DNA and how is it complex and specified. I guess we gotta stick to that. :)

 

I think you'll see my other post and see that I've done just that.

 

However, it's pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion, isn't it?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just imagine human teeth. the genetic code has to instruct the body to make

32 of them , not 30 or 31. they have to form nerve canals and enclose them with a harder material called dentin which is denser protein and encase that with a specific thickness of enamel which is composed of just the right amount of ca, o, h and other constituents. each tooth is shaped differently but can be recognized as that specific tooth in all mankind. the tooth has a certain length, shape, structure and wrinkled chewing surface, all done according to the dna instructions acting in accord with the human blueprint. when this happens millions of times every year, how can one argue against dna being

instructions, or information ( orders ) given to the body by DNA ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, quite the opposite is true. EVERY molecule in nature posesses information. I think that your statement relies on a misunderstanding of the word "information."

 

True, every molecule can be said to possess "information". However, the DNA molecule is the one molecule which carries an additional "kind" of information. That is, in addition to the kind of information which is found in every molecule, DNA carries a kind of information that is not possessed by just any molecule.

 

I would agree that there is much misunderstanding about what is meant by "information" in the context of DNA. For our purposes here, there are two connotations for "information". I like to use The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere to illustrate the difference:

 

Revere arranged with his friend on that night that the friend would hang either one lantern or two lanterns from the belfry arch on the North Church Tower as a way to signal to Revere, who would wait on the opposite shore, which direction the British were approaching from. One lantern if by land, and two if by sea.

 

Now, Revere might see one lantern. Whether we know the "code" or not, that lantern represents the first connotation of "information". The meaning isn't important. This is the kind of information Shannon was studying as he tried to find ways to compress information. He didn't care what the message was, he just wanted to maximize the volume of information (bits) which could be carried along a telephone line. He didn't care what might be discussed using the telephone line.

 

But to go further, Revere and his friend had arranged a very simple set of rules which gave those lanterns (or that lantern) meaning. And this is the second connotation. True, Shannon would be proud… 'cuz to convey the message that the Brits were approaching by land, they only needed one lantern. One "bit", as it were. And to convey the message that the Brits were approaching by sea, they only needed two lanterns. That's pretty efficient communication. But this second connotation is extremely important… this is what is meant when we say that DNA carries "information". I'm not denying that Shannon's principles of information are applicable to DNA. But this other "type" of information is also present: Instructions for building and operating a living organism. That's a message. DNA isn't just random bits. The sequence of DNA base pairs, just like Paul Revere's lanterns, convey meaning. This is undeniable… we know this with absolute certainty because the genome from one organism will repeatedly yield that organism. You don't get a different organism every time you execute the code in a given genome.

 

It appears some individuals are inclined to deny the applicability of this second connotation for "information" and instead focus on the "Shannon" connotation. They're much safer that way, I s'pose, because they don't have to face the profound implications of a code which conveys a specific message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just imagine human teeth. the genetic code has to instruct the body to make 32 of them , not 30 or 31. they have to form nerve canals and enclose them with a harder material called dentin which is denser protein and encase that with a specific thickness of enamel which is composed of just the right amount of ca, o, h and other constituents. each tooth is shaped differently but can be recognized as that specific tooth in all mankind. the tooth has a certain length, shape, structure and wrinkled chewing surface, all done according to the dna instructions acting in accord with the human blueprint. when this happens millions of times every year, how can one argue against dna being instructions, or information ( orders ) given to the body by DNA?

 

Can't argue with that, Questor!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just imagine human teeth…when this happens millions of times every year, how can one argue against dna being instructions, or information (orders) given to the body by DNA?

 

I wonder… if it can be said that DNA does not contain "information" (in the sense of instructions, message, meaning, etc.) then can it also be said that an ordinary JPEG electronic file does not contain "information" in the same sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...