DNA and Information

[jkellmd]

I read some time back that some of the organisms living in undersea vent environments, considered to be some of the earliest of life forms, made use of sulfur based DNA - suggesting that even the basic structure of DNA has "evolved."

 

Anyone have more recent information, or knowledge of new developments?

[Boerseun]

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?

Quite right. If you reduce a JPEG file to its smallest constituent, you'll get a binary 1 or 0. This in itself means nothing. JPEG's also suffer from a form of 'evolution', because those that doesn't mean anything to human observers (the 'environment'), simply gets deleted. A garbled JPEG will yield a picture on your screen resembling snow on a television. This picture will get deleted.

 

DNA, reduced to its simplest form, also means nothing. But, through feedback from the environment and millions of years of abiding what the 'environment' demands, increased in complexity until we find the current form of DNA today. Those that resembled 'television snow', i.e. didn't conform to what the environment dictated, got 'deleted' - same as with the JPEG.

 

'Junk DNA' doesn't get expressed, and is therefore not subject to evolutionary 'deletion'. A virus, which infected a bird, cutting a thread of DNA out of the bird and then went on to infect a human, can, conceivably inject a piece of bird DNA into a human strand. We might have DNA coding for growing feathers - it's just not getting expressed, and therefore you don't see people with feathers under their armpits.

 

DNA does contain information. Without a doubt. We (us crazy heathenly evolutionists) have never denied that simple fact. How it got there is what's confusing you, TRoutMac.

[TRoutMac]

DNA does contain information. Without a doubt. We (us crazy heathenly evolutionists) have never denied that simple fact. How it got there is what's confusing you, TRoutMac.

 

Boerseun, you've completely ignored the whole issue. I've never stated nor even insinuated that ID-bashers deny that DNA carries information. However, as ilustrated by a couple of posts in this thread, ID-bashers try to claim that the information stored in a DNA molecule does not differentiate DNA from the "information" in any other molecule.

 

Back to the JPEG illustration… to you and I, the sequence of 1s and 0s which comprise an image appears to be random and meaningless. However, when you use software that's designed to properly interpret the JPEG sequence, you get a specific image. In fact, there's no shortage of software programs which can display this JPEG image. And no matter which one you use to open a given JPEG image… Photoshop, a web browser, an e-mail client, you will always get the same image. Is there some chance that the data will become corrupted? Absolutely. But a decade of professional image editing has demonstrated to me that when a JPEG file becomes corrupt, not even Photoshop is likely to open it. In other words, it's non-functional. Corruption aside, those 1s and 0s have meaning. If they didn't, then every time you opened up a given file, you'd see a different image… and it would look like "snow". Since you can repeatedly open a given JPEG file and see the very same image every time, we know that the code within has meaning.

 

Now the assertion was made by Fishteacher that DNA is "nothing more than letters". And Vending asserted that "EVERY molecule in nature posesses information"; implying that DNA is essentially no different than any other molecule; all molecules contain information, DNA is a molecule, DNA contains information, 'nuff said.

 

Unfortunately, both have made assertions that, on a scientific basis, are impossible to support. DNA may indeed carry the same kind of information as other molecules, but it stores another kind of information in addition to that, and this makes DNA (and RNA) molecules totally unique, and it renders Vending's assertion incorrect. It seems that both Fishteacher and Vending would like to sweep this distinction under the rug and pretend that there's only one kind of "information". Sure you say and indeed they say DNA is "information" but then turn right around and claim that it carries no "meaning". The reason for this is pretty obvious… they recognize that information which carries meaning is a hallmark of mind. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "information habitually arises from conscious activity."

 

To say that DNA is "nothing more than letters" is to imply that DNA is random garbledy-gook and has no meaning. If this is true, then when we "execute" the instructions in the genome for a given organism, let's say a sheep, (cloning is essentially just that… "running" or "executing" the instructions in DNA) then there is no reason we should expect another sheep. We might get a fish instead. Or a horse. Or a snail. Or, heck… maybe we'll get an eggplant. Who knows? It's all random, means nothing, right?

 

Yeah, well… trouble is, when you clone a sheep, you get a sheep, don't you? When you "execute" the instructions in the genome for one particular organism, you get that organism and only that organism. What this means is that the code in DNA is a "code" through and through… it has a specific meaning. There's nothing random about it.

 

Indeed, DNA carries information in the same sense that a JPEG file carries information. The JPEG file's code means something specific and when you execute that code (open the file) you will always get the same product. Perhaps it's a photo of the Matterhorn from last year's trip to Europe. As long as the file's data structure stays intact, you will always see the Matterhorn when you view that file.

[Erasmus00]

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

 

Remember that easily ninety-nine percent of biologists disagree with you. These are the people who have devoted their lives to the study of such things. Meanwhile you, a non-expert who probably hasn't even had college level biology courses believe that all these people are wrong. I assert that the simple metaphors you constantly make do not encompass the heart of the debate. If you wish to sway educated people, consider taking some college classes.

-Will

[Boerseun]

TRoutMac, I fail to see the problem.

 

DNA is information. Without a doubt. If it's garbled, it won't get executed. Or, it might get executed, but garbled - and will result in a random tumour or growth with no meaning. The information being the result of a continuous feedback loop with environmental pressure being the input over billions of years, seem to stump you.

 

Let's go back to your JPEG example:

 

If I email the same picture to ten friends, in ten different resolutions and sizes, and ask them to send me back the one which suited them the best, I'll get a couple of different responses. My one friend will send me back the 800x600 JPEG, because that is what he prefers, and what works best on his system. My other friend will send me back the lower quality 40x40 JPEG, because he wants to use it as his avatar on his favourite forum, Hypography. And so on. My other friend will select the one that works best on his cellphone. They will delete the rest. If you reduce it to a stream of bits, there's a world of difference between those that get selected. The data format is the same, but in essence, it's different pics that end up making the grade to comply with different 'environmental' requirements. That's evolution as appliccable to your example.

 

If you want to use modern-day information-based metaphors to support your views regarding the fact (or fallacy, depending on your point of view) of evolution, remember to include things like sex, death and mutation as well, for that is the mechanism at the heart of evolution. The 'Holy Triumvirate', so to speak, of the matter at hand.

 

Coming back to your JPEG example yet again. If there are a few bits controlling brightness, for instance, and its a pretty dark picture I send of to my mates, and by accident this stream of bits gets garbled to produce a brighter picture on the other side, and they select the brighter one over the darker one, that's an example of a beneficial mutation. Of course, the stream of bits and the order in which they appear to brighten the picture, isn't simple - it must be a pretty complex mutation to get it right. But that's why I'm sending off my email to millions of people every day. Those that get mutated into garbage will simply get deleted, but those that might produce a beneficial mutation, few and far between, will get selected if the requirements for that mutation is there. The complexity needed for an advantageous mutation is also probably key to understanding why so many species have gone extinct in the past. There's no guarantee that a beneficial mutation will occur in times of environmental stress.

 

Same with sex, and genetic mutations. A single cell, dividing and living and procreating etc. over millions of years, will not do. The odds are stacked way against it. But the simple fact is that we simply cannot look at a single cell. There was billions. Trillions, even, at any one given time. And they divided, split, mutated, and those paltry few that experienced advantageous mutations, had a better chance of procreation. And in the next generation, it just went on. And today, three to four billion years later, here we stand.

 

The fact that DNA contains information, is not contested. How it got there, seems to be as a reaction to environmental pressures in an endless feedback loop.

[TRoutMac]

Remember that easily ninety-nine percent of biologists disagree with you. These are the people who have devoted their lives to the study of such things.

 

First of all, I must point out that it's not me with whom they disagree. I'm nobody. It's the equally well-educated and equally devoted scientists… astronomers, mathematicians, biologists, etc. who are researching Intelligent Design with which they disagree. They may not constitute a majority by any stretch of the imagination, but they are out there.

 

With that in mind, it seems you've appealed to "majority rule" in the past, and once again, I must reject that as any kind of useful argument. For example… prior to Copernicus, what percentage of astronomers believed that the universe revolved around the Earth? Can we not safely assume it was a vast, overwhelming majority? Did that make them right? Obviously not… turned out Copernicus was right. So appealing to a majority opinion is quite useless.

 

That aside, within the context of this particular thread, what assertion have I made that all of these biologists would disagree with? What have I said in this thread, with regard to DNA and information, that's factually wrong? Is it wrong to say that a given genome always results in the same organism? Can you really take the genome of a turtle, for example, and somehow get an octopus? Do ordinary molecules -- like water, for example -- actually contain DNA as well? Within a water molecule, can you find instructions for building something else? Did I miss some chemistry breakthrough, or something? Alright, fine… water's not a polymer. Are there any polymers out there which carry within their structure instructions for building something entirely different? How about rubber… that's a polymer. Does a molecule of rubber contain such instructions? So, is it factually wrong for me to assert that DNA and RNA are the only molecules known to us which carry this extra "level" of information? What would this 99% of biologists disagree with, specifically?

 

Meanwhile you, a non-expert who probably hasn't even had college level biology courses believe that all these people are wrong. I assert that the simple metaphors you constantly make do not encompass the heart of the debate.

 

I'm not about to challenge these folks (biologists, etc) on the function or purpose of DNA. But I haven't made any assertions that do so… It's true that my resumé doesn't include a vast education in science. But if I've got the facts right about how DNA works and what it consists of, then isn't it a cheap shot to try to belittle me because of my education? Either I understand how DNA works, or I don't.

 

No, I'm not challenging the observable facts surrounding DNA's function… what I challenge is the conclusions they draw from that. The conclusions they draw are subjective opinions steered heavily by their world view and philosophical opinions. What I challenge is this silly idea that information such as that found in DNA can arise from anything other than intelligence. That other scientists believe that it can only reveals how devoted they are to perpetuating their own world view. Sorry, you don't need a PhD to know that's not science.

 

That you don't see how my metaphors "encompass the heart of the debate" says more, perhaps, about what you don't understand about DNA than it does about what I don't understand about DNA.

[TRoutMac]

TRoutMac, I fail to see the problem…The fact that DNA contains information, is not contested.

 

Again, it may not be contested by you, but Fishteacher and Vending, while they may recognize that DNA contains "information" generally, it would appear that they reject that there is anything unique about that information. Again, we're using the same term to describe two different kinds of information, and that can get pretty confusing. But if you recognize that there is something unique about the information in DNA, that DNA does carry a dimension of information that is not found in any other naturally occurring polymer, then you've made the first (albeit small) step toward "recovery" (he, he) and I commend you for that.

 

How it got there, seems to be as a reaction to environmental pressures in an endless feedback loop.

 

"Seems to be"? If it just "seems to be" that way, then we're just talking about subjective interpretations, aren't we? And that's the whole problem, isn't it? Gotta get the subjective interpretations out of the way.

[Boerseun]

"Seems to be"? If it just "seems to be" that way, then we're just talking about subjective interpretations, aren't we? And that's the whole problem, isn't it? Gotta get the subjective interpretations out of the way.

As opposed to your view, of course, that they were definitely formed by an Intelligent Designer. For which you don't have proof, either.

 

In an earlier post in another thread, I've posted that we're wasting our time blabbering away about the pros and cons of ID vs evolution. And I'll say it again. Me saying that it 'seems' more likely, simply acknowledges the fact that we don't have enough proof to decide how the genesis of life came to be. Evolution, once again, is a continuous process that's been happening to Life after Life was 'created', be it through abiogenesis or a deliberate, planned creation by some intelligence. Intelligent Designers are stuck on the actual process of 'creation'. That's a completely different debate. You can't tell me that ID is 'true', the best you can do is to tell me that it your view, ID seems to be true.

 

And if we're going down that route (please refer to my very first post in this thread...), let me make my view clear here, once and for all, and hopefully for the last time:

 

Neither me nor any other person with a brain in his/her head, knows what happened at the moment of Life's 'creation'. Being scientists, we can deduce what's more likely. Mixing a bunch of chemicals in a jar to simulate the early atmosphere, with a planet being pummeled by asteroids stuffed full of hydrocarbons and UV input unimpeded by an ozone layer, and then nuking that jar with electricity to simulate lightning yields a very rich mix of organic chemistry. This is a very plausable scenario, one in which some molecules could very well have been able to serve as a template for others to bind to it in the proper form and order it consists of. That's the best we can do. We can speculate on possible scenarios, and this one I mentioned, fits the bill very nicely as a possibility. It could very well have been, but we simply don't know.

 

This is opposed to your view of some alien intelligence (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not refer to a God of any kind or flavour, seeing as you're trying to tell me that ID is not religiously inclined at all) landed in his little UFO, and then created Life in a jar in his little saucer, and let it roam wild. This is ridiculous, to put it mildly.

[TRoutMac]

If I email the same picture to ten friends, in ten different resolutions and sizes, and ask them to send me back the one which suited them the best, I'll get a couple of different responses.

 

Funny thing about this analogy is that your friends used their intelligence to select the one that served their purposes.

[Tormod]

Funny thing about this analogy is that your friends used their intelligence to select the one that served their purposes.

 

And how interesting that it can be proven that they did so. Get on with it.

[Edge]

Funny thing about this analogy is that your friends used their intelligence to select the one that served their purposes.

In that case, natural selection would be evidence of nature's intelligence?

 

You forgot that you delete the JPEG files that aren't worth for you, that's natural selection according to the analogy. Natural selection is not being disputed, does it?

 

The JPEG analogy is quite fallacious; you already set the trap since that moment, but I'll play on.

 

First, JPEG's can't reproduce. Second, JPEG code was made by us. See what I mean? However, let me play on over this.

 

You can convert JPEG to GIF to BMP, transfer it to word and HTML, take it to excel and powerpoint, transfer to it a DGN (Microstation) file and make quite a lot of file types out of it. Making speciation possible. but that's another subject. And yes, I realize that in order to accomplish this you need to use your intelligence. That's why that analogy is not objective. The point is that the same info can be altered to make new types of files.

 

Now, JPEG is always the same picture, no matter what image viewer you use, well, that's true. However, that does not prove anything. Tree rings, Diamons, things that are complex in nature and supposedly do not contain information can be viewed by many different persons and all of them will see the same thing. According to that logic, those diamons, and tree rings should contain information. And in some way do, but not on the DNA scale.

 

Corruption of JPEG files, well, true. A corrupted JPEG file can't be opened, the code in it should not be altered by us in order to maintain it "viewable". However, what it is missing in here is that you need to use your intelligence or a computer error in order to corrupt it. But computer errors happen because of electricity shortage, bad managing of program and files done by humans with their "intelligence". A catastrophic scenario, if we might say.

 

Nature, according to people, does not have intelligence, so, DNA can't be easily corrupted.

 

What other ways can be there to damage a JPEG file? Well, there's the way of copying to a floppy and when copied to another computer you can open it, but there is a mess in some section of the picture. I have seen it happen. However, the JPEG file still opens, the inside info was altered somehow... yet, it still works. That can be a mutation if you'd like to it that way. Nature (the copying from disk to the PC) altered it.

 

Supposing that JPEG contains information just like DNA. It can be altered? Sure it can, just like DNA (supposedly). Does that alterations make it not work? Only if an intelligent force acts over it... or if cathastropic natural consequences happen...

 

Neither me nor any other person with a brain in his/her head, knows what happened at the moment of Life's 'creation'. Being scientists, we can deduce what's more likely. Mixing a bunch of chemicals in a jar to simulate the early atmosphere, with a planet being pummeled by asteroids stuffed full of hydrocarbons and UV input unimpeded by an ozone layer, and then nuking that jar with electricity to simulate lightning yields a very rich mix of organic chemistry. This is a very plausable scenario, one in which some molecules could very well have been able to serve as a template for others to bind to it in the proper form and order it consists of. That's the best we can do. We can speculate on possible scenarios, and this one I mentioned, fits the bill very nicely as a possibility. It could very well have been, but we simply don't know.

Can scientists deduce if life was intentionally created or not? That's a very good question. If they can, then yes, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, despite what many people would say. Seeing ID sites, it says that yes, they can. However, what about the counterpart? Their opinion and arguments are also valid.

[TRoutMac]

In that case, natural selection would be evidence of nature's intelligence?

 

Edge, if nature is "intelligent", then where's its brain? Where is the "intelligence" located?

 

 

First, JPEG's can't reproduce. Second, JPEG code was made by us. See what I mean? However, let me play on over this.

 

You can convert JPEG to GIF to BMP, transfer it to word and HTML, take it to excel and powerpoint, transfer to it a DGN (Microstation) file and make quite a lot of file types out of it. Making speciation possible.

 

Try thinking of it this way, instead… I think it's more consistent. JPEG format is more analogous to the Universal Genetic Code. DNA is like a particular file format which describes something. JPEG is a code which stores information about an image. DNA is a code which stores information about a living organism. JPEG arranges data according to conventions of the JPEG file format (Joint Photographic Experts Group) DNA arranges data according to the conventions of the UGC.

 

If you want an analogy for mutation and "speciation", file corruption would suffice even if it may not fit perfectly. Mutation results generally from the accidental mis-copying of information. The information becomes "damaged". Corruption in an electronic file results from copying and other anomalies. Now if we applied the "logic" of macro-evolution to this analogy, that file corruption would transform a photo of me holding a trout into a photo of me holding a bass.

 

Of course, in this context we see that to expect this result would be ludicrous. File corruption may render the part of the photo containing the trout into an unreadable 'snowy' portion, but it could never replace that trout with a bass. Now, in my experience I have only seen corrupted JPEG files fail to open completely. But you've seen portions of a JPEG file affected by corruption, I'll defer to that. I've experienced JPEG files saved in the CMYK colorspace (instead of RGB) display incorrectly in a web browser that doesn't know how to read CMYK data, but that's a different problem altogether.

[Boerseun]

Edge, if nature is "intelligent", then where's its brain? Where is the "intelligence" located?

...if ID is the case, where's your aliens? Where's the intelligence? It's the same argument.

First, JPEG's can't reproduce. Second, JPEG code was made by us. See what I mean?

Thank you. The mere fact that JPEG's can't reproduce, disqualifies your analogy. Read my previous post. If you want to use another silly analogy, make sure it includes DEATH, SEX, and MUTATION. (Taxes too, if you wanna be masochistic).

[TRoutMac]

...if ID is the case, where's your aliens? Where's the intelligence? It's the same argument.

 

In animals and humans, intelligence of varying degrees is always located in the mind. Nature has nothing of the sort to "house" its intelligence. It reflects intelligence as we've seen so many examples of. But it does not "possess" intelligence. Obviously, if the intelligent designers are aliens, it's pretty easy to imagine that they would have brains, that they have minds. Personally, however, I agree that pointing to aliens as the intelligent designer is ridiculous, but it doesn't suffer from the same problem as nature having intelligence.

 

As for other possibilities, if there is some eternal, personal being then the intelligence is located with that being.

 

The mere fact that JPEG's can't reproduce, disqualifies your analogy. Read my previous post. If you want to use another silly analogy, make sure it includes DEATH, SEX, and MUTATION. (Taxes too, if you wanna be masochistic).

 

You're absolutely right… a JPEG image doesn't reproduce itself. Trouble is, neither does DNA. DNA doesn't duplicate itself. DNA gets duplicated by information processing system of which it is a major component. DNA molecules don't have sex, get pregnant, etc… DNA is not "active" in its duplication, it is passive. And you know what? So is any electronic file.

 

The purpose of the comparison of DNA with an electronic file format was only to illustrate the nature of information which DNA contains. And this you have conceded, or so it would seem. If not, then your position is that there is no distinction between the information in DNA and the information in any other naturally occurring polymer, such as rubber. Trouble is, this is an indefensible position scientifically speaking. Rubber molecules do not carry a "digital code", but as Questor pointed out, Richard Dawkins explains that DNA does (recycling the quotes Questor posted originally):

 

"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."

 

Now I assume you all know that Richard Dawkins is no Intelligent Design proponent. And yet, he sees fit to draw a comparison between a computer file and DNA. (are you reading this, Erasmus?) So what am I to assume here? Intelligent Design proponents can't use analogies to computer information, but an atheist evolutionist can?

[Boerseun]

A 'mind' of some sort would only be a requirement if life was 'premeditated'. And there's no evidence towards that, either. If life (and all the different flavours and species of it) is the result of a feedback loop, then no 'mind' is required to set it all in motion.

 

A car's exhaust gas doesn't know how to convert to a less poinsonous substance. We place some platinum in there, and <BOOM> the gas converts. It needs a catalyst that 'tells' it how to convert. There's certainly no intelligence there, but seeing it from a distance, without properly understanding how a catalytic converter works, would probably seem like it to the uninitiated. A catalyst loses nothing of its mass in the process, and will literally last forever. So how does it get the 'information' across to the carbon monoxide to convert? Huh? Intelligence?

 

Same with supercooled water. Supercooled H2O is 'dumb', and simply doesn't know how to form ice crystals. It needs a seed crystal to tell it how to freeze, and when it does so, it does so very quickly. It was just waiting for the 'information'.

 

Simply put - there are so many different examples of natural occurences that could be billed to an 'intelligence' having to be present, but between all these different cases, building up towards life itself, there's so many shades of gray that we simply cannot say that life was premeditated based on the evidence at hand. And if you keep on doing it, you're gonna have to start presenting some real proof, not only analogies and metaphors.

[TRoutMac]

A 'mind' of some sort would only be a requirement if life was 'premeditated'. And there's no evidence towards that, either. If life (and all the different flavours and species of it) is the result of a feedback loop, then no 'mind' is required to set it all in motion.

 

And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts on lily pads.

 

Regarding your catalytic converter illustration… When you boil it all down, we have 3 ways we can explain any phenomenon or occurrence:

 

1) Chance (random, unguided, undirected)

2) Necessity (required by natural laws to take place)

3) Design (intelligent agent, purpose)

 

Regarding the function of a catalytic converter, those reactions take place because of the laws of chemistry demand it. You send this gas through there at that temperature, and this reaction must take place. Now, of course, design explains why the catalytic converter is there to begin with, but necessity (natural law) explains how the catalytic converter functions and accomplishes what we need it to accomplish. The catalyst doesn't "tell" it how to convert. When certain molecules come in contact with certain molecules, certain reactions take place. The molecules do not possess intelligence. There is no information of the kind found in DNA being exchanged.

 

Same with supercooled water. Supercooled H2O is 'dumb', and simply doesn't know how to form ice crystals. It needs a seed crystal to tell it how to freeze, and when it does so, it does so very quickly. It was just waiting for the 'information'.

 

Again, this is a function of chemical laws… necessity. Water molecules do not contain anything analogous to DNA.

 

Once again I must point out that naturalism is restricting or reducing the number of explanatory options for you when it comes to origin of life.

 

My presupposition that maybe, just maybe there could be some Intelligent Designer permits me to consider all three of the possibilities above… chance, necessity and design.

 

On the other hand, your presupposition that there cannot be any Intelligent Designer eliminates the option of Design and forces you to conjure up an explanation using chance and necessity. But the problem you're seeing is that chance and necessity are inadequate to explain the presence of information in DNA. (The information Richard Dawkins described when he compared it to data files on a computer.)

 

In every other realm of science, scientists are permitted to consider the third option; design. Archaeology, cryptography, forensic science, SETI… all of these and others are permitted to explore all three possible explanations; chance, necessity and design. But suddenly, and inexplicably, when the question is the origin of life, that objectivity is abandoned and design is removed from the list. And all in the name of "science", and all in the name of "objectivity". What a crock.

 

And speaking of "real proof", Questor's first post included the following statement, which apparently nobody has been prepared to respond to:

 

…it's interesting to note that neither he [Dawkins], 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.

 

There's a damned good reason why no one has produced such explanations… it's because we already know that intelligence can and does produce exactly the kind of information we're talking about. The reasonable explanation is staring us all in the face. It's just that some feel compelled by their faith in naturalism to narrow the field of possible explanations, pretend that design is not an option, and then claim "objectivity".

[questor]

i think comparing the information in DNA to a chemical catalysis is a totally faulty analogy. Troutmac is correct on this point and also speaks correctly of the blind spot scientists have concerning this subject. this inability to intellectualize the implications of DNA intelligence are of interest to those who may be interested in brain function.