DNA and Information

[Vending]

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.

 

Well, since this was the second time you stated this, i thought i would reply. Basically, I in no way ever stated this. What I said was that information derives from order. Without order, there can be no information. The obvious conclusion (and the one that I was trying to make) was that all molelecules contain information and that this information derives from the order they poses. DNA is no exception to this rule. The information contained within DNA nessesarily comes from its order. (for the case you seem interested in, the order of the bases determines the condons). My statemtent was simply that. I am sorry if there was confusion or if i was unclear.

 

Now, that being said, i have a few other things to say.

 

You state that the information in DNA is somehow unique. I maintain that it is not, in anyway unique. What is unique is the way in which the cell utalizes this information.

 

You claim that DNA is unique because it conatines the information nessesary to code for an animal, correct? However, consider this, so do the proteins present in that animal. Given the primary structure of a protein, it is quite simple to provide the DNA sequence that corresponds to that protein. Thus, if we conducted a survey of all the proteins in an animal,we would be able to construct the genetic code for that animal. THUS, the information for a specific animal is also present in the protiens.

 

We can also sequence the genome of an entire species and write it in a book. Then the book codes for the species. But the book is NOT DNA. Please think about this for a second. THe point here is that DNA does not contain unique information or information that is unique in anyway. IN all cases, the informtion is just a result of the order imposed on a system. The uniqueness of DNA lies in the manner in which it is utalized by the cell.

 

You have hit upon this point before, without emphasizing it. The uniqueness of DNA lies in the unique role it plays in the cell. The reason why the informion in DNA seems so special is that it plays a special role. It is the information contained in DNA that the cell uses to contruct life. Now that is cool.

 

So i think the main point of this post is to clairify my position. DNA contains no unique or special information. The special thing about DNA is that it can be used by the cell to create life. The special thing is that the order found in DNA can be used to inforce more order upon its surroundings.

 

I hope i was more clear this time.

[TRoutMac]

Well, since this was the second time you stated this, i thought i would reply. Basically, I in no way ever stated this.

 

Vending, let's be clear here… I said that "while they (Fishteacher and yourself) may recognize that DNA contains "information" generally, it would appear that they reject that there is anything unique about that information." (emphasis added)

 

The "it would appear" part was about allowing for the possibility that I misunderstood your position. However, in your most recent post you said:

 

The point here is that DNA does not contain unique information or information that is unique in any way.

 

And again…

 

DNA contains no unique or special information.

 

The statement you made in your first post was "EVERY molecule in nature possesses information." and from this I surmised that you do not believe there is anything unique about the information in DNA. And I expressed this in my post. You replied that you never stated this, and then you said that there's nothing unique about the information in DNA, which is exactly what I surmised to begin with. Are you getting dizzy yet? Now granted, you may not have used the exact words, but I surmised correctly.

 

Unfortunately, there's no scientific support for your statement. While DNA may indeed possess the same kind of information found in any other naturally occurring polymer, it also contains an entirely different kind of information. It contains instructions for building something completely different from itself. DNA and RNA are the only molecules which possess this kind of information. These molecules are totally unique in this respect. Does a rubber molecule contain any instructions? No. A rubber molecule may have an exquisite, specific structure, and it may exhibit some sort of "order", and by virtue of this you may be able to say that it possesses "information". But when you do, you use the term "information" to mean something different. I can't say you're incorrect to do so… your usage is "correct" as far as it goes. But the word "information" has different meanings. And when Questor or myself say that DNA carries "information", we're not talking about the same "information" you're talking about.

 

Here's an illustration that might be useful: A blank CD-R disc (and for simplicity's sake, let's pretend this disc doesn't even have a label etched onto it) could be said to carry "information". How can this be? Because by looking at the disc, I can gain knowledge about it. It's about 4 11/16" in diameter, it's made of a metallic material of some sort, encased in acrylic, parts of it are transparent, it has a hole in the middle, and it reflects prismatic colors when held in the light just right. All of that is information in the same sense that you say molecules possess "information". Now, burn some data onto that disc. Let's say it's plans for a house in DXF format. Now you've added a different kind of information onto that disc. You've loaded instructions onto that disc. A CD-R disc which has data burned onto it carries a kind of information that a blank CD-R disc does not carry.

 

Same with DNA. Compare DNA's double-helix backbone (ignore the "ladder rungs" for a moment) to a blank CD-R platter. The backbone is the carrier just as the platter is a carrier. It has structure, in has "information" in one sense. Now, compare the nucleotide base pairs (the ladder rungs) to the houseplans you burned onto the blank disc. Both represent a "digital code" (Richard Dawkins' term, remember?) and both add an entirely different kind of "information" to the information carrier.

 

I hope this helps clear up the issue for you.

[Vending]

I am sorry if my last post appeared to be me jumping down your throat. That was not my intention. I think you are correct in your assesment of my position. I just like having the words come out of my own mouth too :cup:

 

it also contains an entirely different kind of information. It contains instructions for building something completely different from itself. DNA and RNA are the only molecules which possess this kind of information.

 

Any kinase causes ADP to be made from ATP. ADP if totally different than the enzyme that created it. Basically most catalysts create molecules that are totally differnt than themselves. And they MUST posses the information (or instructions -- if you must) for making those molecules or said molecules could not be made.

 

Anyways, that is besides the point, the main point i wish to discuss follows...

 

I cannot understand how you can claim that the genetic information contained in DNA is unique. Consider the following. You have two things;

a) A piece of DNA coding for the enzyme ATP synthase.

:cup: a book that contains the sequence of DNA bases that code for ATP synthase.

 

now the above two things contain the exact same genetic information. Thus, the information in DNA is not unique.

 

The thing that is so interesting about DNA is not itself or the non-unique informtaion it carrries. It is how that information is processed. IN fact, it is ENTIRELY the processesing of the information that lends it its significance.

 

I like your CD analogy, so i will build upon that. Consider your CD with the houseplans on it. Now, take that CD and put it into the CD player of your car. What do you here? White noise, if anything. The information that you have added to the CD is worthless without the proper means to decode it. Unless you put in into a computer with the proper software AND activate that software, the information that you have on the CD is worthless.

 

The point is that any value or usefullness of the information conatined in objects comes from how that information is USED -- not what that infomation enherently is. In the case of DNA, the infomation it contains -- ALL the information it contains -- is non unique. THere is no way around this, as long as we can represent this information is another way, it must be non-unique. THe part that is unique is how this information is processed -- how it is used. The sequence of DNA bases written in a book does not produce a protien. However, place the same sequence of DNA into a cell (into an environment containing the right mechanisms to process the information) and you will get a protein.

 

You see, it is the process of information PROCESSING that lends significance, not the information itself. There is not anything unique about the information contained in DNA -- rather it is how this information is unterprited that is interesting.

 

I challange you to show how information in DNA can be unique. That is I wish you to show me how the information contained in DNA (whithout its processing) can be such that it cannot be represented elsewhere. I think you shall find that this is impossible to prove.

[Edge]

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

Curious question, you answered that ID's intelligence is found in nature.

 

But let me explain, nature always balances itself, or at least it seems to. Natural selection is eliminating what it is no longer needed or what it does not longer fit. ID people accept this.

 

Also, is strange that nature is always finding a way to "fix" itself from the harm we men can do to it. It always equilibrates.

 

Yah, it's not intelligence on the literal way you want to, but it is "intelligence" on a subjective way. (And from ID sites, it also seems that the "intelligence" they find is also subjective)

 

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.

OK.

 

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.

True, you can see that more often with Floppy disks, now on CDs is quite impossible.

 

Now, another example, have you copied a .doc file and took it to another PC an open it with its Microsoft Word? Sometimes the Margins are disaligned or stuff like that. (Not bad, just... changed, but not because of mis-copy, it's because of config)

 

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.

Nope, that would be microevolution, only a part of the photo changed. Not all the photo itself.

 

Or you can do macroevolution, though, by passing a JPEG to BMP, another process. Yes, again, I know it must be a code already set on the PC and I must use my intelligence to do that.

 

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.

The camera was a Sony Mavica which recorded photos on Floppys, we copied it to a PC and then we used another floppy to transfer it to other PC (it was a while ago, CD-burners were just new, hehe :cup: ). I guess that the floppy surface was bad or something.

[TRoutMac]

Curious question, you answered that ID's intelligence is found in nature.

 

Not quite. I said that nature "reflects" the intelligence of the designer, not that nature "possesses" intelligence. Big difference there, don't you think?

 

But let me explain, nature always balances itself, or at least it seems to.

 

I agree. The efficiency of nature in this respect is truly amazing. But wouldn't this in itself hint at Intelligent Design? Wouldn't an Intelligent Designer devise nature in such a way that it would balance as it appears to?

 

Also, is strange that nature is always finding a way to "fix" itself from the harm we men can do to it. It always equilibrates.

 

Yes, another indicator, it would seem, of Intelligent Design…

 

Yah, it's not intelligence on the literal way you want to, but it is "intelligence" on a subjective way. (And from ID sites, it also seems that the "intelligence" they find is also subjective)

 

You're right. It's not intelligence, literally. Intelligent Design refers to a literal intelligence… the actual conscious activity of a mind. Nothing subjective about that. We're invoking an intelligence that is a lot like our own intelligence, but vastly more intelligent.

 

Now, another example, have you copied a .doc file and took it to another PC an open it with its Microsoft Word? Sometimes the Margins are disaligned or stuff like that. (Not bad, just... changed, but not because of mis-copy, it's because of config)

 

Well, I've seen things like that… but I try to stay away from Microsoft products… us Mac guys are like that. :cup:

 

Nope, that would be microevolution, only a part of the photo changed. Not all the photo itself. Or you can do macroevolution, though, by passing a JPEG to BMP, another process. Yes, again, I know it must be a code already set on the PC and I must use my intelligence to do that.

 

I don't mean to be too "anal" about this illustration, but it's important. I don't mean to brow-beat you with this, DNA is a digital code which describes something. JPEG, for example, is a digital code which describes something. For DNA, the "something" is an organism. For JPEG, the "something" is an image. With that relationship established, it's clear that DNA's code is comparable to a particular file format. It's a way of storing and expressing genetic information. The "evolution" occurrs in the "something" that is described by the code… the code or "file format" never changes. Therefore in my analogy, the appearance of the image is what is subject to "evolution", because the image is what's described by the digital code. So, even though we may be getting a little stretched in this analogy, let's continue anyway… I'll concede that an image of me holding a trout or a bass can be "micro-evolution", and I was wrong to use it as "macro". Now, let's define that image… let's say it's an image that's 1600 pixels by 1200 pixels. You just rearrange the same pixels and change their color and a trout can become a bass. In the end, your image still has exactly the same amount of information. Macro-evolution would rearrange the pixels also, but you would end up with an image some other subject AND with a resolution of something like 4500 pixels by 3000 pixels. That's an increase in information. The first image contained 1920000 pixels, but the "macro-evolved" image has 13500000 pixels, that's a seven-fold increase in information.

 

It's the origin of information and the increase in information, as Questor has said, that presents an immense challenge to "particles-to-people" macro-evolution.

 

In other threads, much has been made about the ambiguity of the term "species" and how that relates to defining micro- vs macro-evolution. But what distinguishes the two is that micro-evolution involves the same "number of pixels", as it were. The same sum total of genetic information. Macro-evolution requires an increase in information, and it is this increase of information, and the origin of the information in the first place, which evolutionists cannot and will not explain.

[questor]

Vending, all cells contain DNA, since all cells must repair, maintain, and reproduce themselves in addition to perfoming their tissue function. this would be impossible without the presence of DNA. you are saying this encoded information is not unique:

''You have hit upon this point before, without emphasizing it. The uniqueness of DNA lies in the unique role it plays in the cell. The reason why the informion in DNA seems so special is that it plays a special role. It is the information contained in DNA that the cell uses to contruct life. Now that is cool.''

your above statement implies that the cell itself has a capacity to call upon DNA to perform it's function. what would that cell capacity be?

[infamous]

 

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.

 

Let's get something straight about the subject of Science and Theology. Science tries to find answers to questions about the natural world by providing evidence with experimentally repeatable results. Theology is the search for understanding about issues of faith and the afterlife. Unless you have spoken with someone that has returned from the dead and brought back evidence to support their claims, your information is based on faith. If you come to the Theology forum with something to prove, your in the wrong place. If you come to the Science forum and present your opinions based on faith, your in the wrong forum. When discussing ID as a scientific theory, evidence will be requested. If none is produced, your positions will be rejected. I really wish people would quite confusing the issues here. I think we can agree that ID does not have to be a Theological issue if evidence can be provided, and I repeat, If evidence can be provided. Mr. TRoutMac; If people do not accept your proof, think it not such an unsual thing. Your behavior demonstrates a desire to prove your point, therefore evidence will be demanded. I am a Christian myself but I must confess, I cannot prove to others my personal belief........Infy

[TRoutMac]

I think we can agree that ID does not have to be a Theological issue if evidence can be provided, and I repeat, If evidence can be provided. Mr. TRoutMac; If people do not accept your proof, think it not such an unsual thing.

 

Thank you, Infamous. This particular thread, I think you will agree, is aimed at answering questions about DNA and information. I also think you will agree that this is a scientific issue to which we ought to be able to apply reason to arrive at a reasonable answer that is consistent with scientific discoveries.

 

Thanks to some of your explanations, I understand the distinction between the Theology forum and, for example, this forum. And, I agree that it's an appropriate distinction. Accordingly, I have not invoked my "faith" as support for any argument I've made in this particular thread… it's simply unnecessary to do so.

 

You are quite correct that I should not be surprised that folks do not accept my evidence.

[questor]

it seems impossible for people to separate Theology, which presupposes a God in man's image, from ID, which supposes a supernatural intelligence responsible for creation of the universe. if there is ID, the discovery of the nature of this force would be the greatest scientific discovery ever made because it would truly be The Final Explanation of all physical law. this subject has created an outpouring of discussion with perhaps some faulty science on both sides. it must be admitted that there is no proof for ID, but there are abundant phenomenae that point in its direction. as far as evolution, the theory is also supported by abundant evidence with quite a few questions and perhaps contradictions clouding the final truth. we cannot solve a question without being able to prove one side or the other in the scientific method, so for now both sides will remain unproved. the believers

of ID have physical evidence that satisfies their thought processes, the unbelievers do not accept this evidence. i do not think these people understand that even if evolution was a proved theory, it would still not negate the theory of intelligent design. ''they just don't get it !''

another issue is those that say, ''i don't believe in creationism ,but i believe

in God as a matter of faith''. what possible sense does this statement make ?

[TRoutMac]

I cannot understand how you can claim that the genetic information contained in DNA is unique. Consider the following. You have two things;

a) A piece of DNA coding for the enzyme ATP synthase.

:cup: a book that contains the sequence of DNA bases that code for ATP synthase.

 

now the above two things contain the exact same genetic information. Thus, the information in DNA is not unique.

 

I think you're using the term "unique" in a broader sense than I am. Let me break it down… DNA is a polymer. That is, a natural compound of high molecular weight consisting of up to millions of repeated linked units, each a relatively light and simple molecule. Natural rubber is also a polymer. When I say the information in DNA is "unique", I mean that other polymers do not contain the same kind of information as DNA. Or, more accurately, DNA contains a kind of information that other polymers do not possess.

 

The genetic information carried on a DNA molecule describes something which is not itself. The rubber molecule possesses information, but it does not contain information which describes anything besides the rubber molecule itself. Therefore, DNA (and RNA) molecules are unique among other molecules in that they carry information about something other than themselves. No other molecule does this.

 

If it would help to assign a name to the two different kinds of information, then the rubber polymer possesses "complex information" while DNA possesses both "complex information" and "complex specified information". The characteristics of DNA's physical structure is "complex information", while the genetic information encoded therein is "complex specified information".

 

Of course, it is possible to express the information within DNA using an entirely different vehicle… a book is one example. You could also encode that information in a way that it could be broadcast as a radio signal, for example. Language is like that… you can express the same concept or idea in English, German, French in either written or spoken forms. The information, the message stays the same, but the vehicle with which it is expressed can be different. This is interesting because this is exactly the kind of information (language) which a rubber molecule lacks.

 

Here's another way to think about it… a blank sheet of paper contains "complex information" (like the rubber molecule). A sheet of paper with printed text on it contains "complex specified information". That sheet of paper (with the text) contains a type of information which the blank sheet of paper does not contain.

 

The thing that is so interesting about DNA is not itself or the non-unique informtaion it carrries. It is how that information is processed. IN fact, it is ENTIRELY the processesing of the information that lends it its significance.

 

You may not realize it, but I'm afriad you're just emphasizing the unique nature of the information in DNA. Let me explain: Again, to use the rubber molecule as an example of a "normal" polymer, the rubber molecule is not a part of a larger information processing system the way DNA is, precisely because rubber doesn't carry the kind of information DNA carries, precisely because DNA is unique in this respect.

 

You see, it is the process of information PROCESSING that lends significance, not the information itself. There is not anything unique about the information contained in DNA -- rather it is how this information is unterprited that is interesting.

 

It's true that information is useless unless it can be retrieved and utilized. But if information is to be processed and utilized, there must be information present.

 

I challange you to show how information in DNA can be unique. That is I wish you to show me how the information contained in DNA (whithout its processing) can be such that it cannot be represented elsewhere. I think you shall find that this is impossible to prove.

 

I've already done this. Perhaps you ought to show me how a rubber molecule can store information which describes something other than itself, and how that moecule is also part of an information processing system that reads and executes those instructions.

[HydrogenBond]

The storage of information within the DNA is based on four base pairs. Computers use binary info, while DNA is quaternary. These four base pairs in various combinations define the memories called genes. The genes are of various lengths, with the lengths defining the number of possible combinations of four pairs pairs that are possible at that length. Of all these possible combinations a finite set of genes will be stored within the DNA.

 

The DNA itself is not totally unraveled, but rather much of it is packed away with packing proteins. The junk areas of the DNA stayed packed until the DNA is duplicated. The unpacked areas provide the genetic memories needed for base cellular existance. Much of the packed DNA is only partially packed and will unpack/repack on demand as a cell interacts with its environment. Since the DNA is reacting to environmental input via chemical triggers from the cytoplasm, this suggests that the cell membrane and everything leading up to the DNA is a type of integrated switching station that relays info to the DNA, so it can unpack the genetic memories needed for the environmental conditions.

[TRoutMac]

The storage of information within the DNA is based on four base pairs. Computers use binary info, while DNA is quaternary.

 

Correct.

 

Is the balance of your description intended to answer the question that Questor was pondering when he started this thread? Or is it intended to explain something about what makes the information in a DNA molecule unique from any other polymer?

[TRoutMac]

it seems impossible for people to separate Theology, which presupposes a God in man's image, from ID, which supposes a supernatural intelligence responsible for creation of the universe.

 

Well, small nitpicky point here, Questor… ID does not suppose that the Intelligent Designer is "supernatural". ID doesn't claim to know anything about the Intelligent Designer, and saying that the designer was supernatural would contradict that. There is another reason that ID doesn't label the designer as "supernatural", though: To do so presumes that we already know the extent of what is "natural".

 

Consider this excerpt from William Dembski's Expert Rebuttal for the Kitzmiller v.s Dover trial:

 

Indeed, what constitutes nature remains very much an open question. …the very term “supernatural” concedes to materialists like Barbara Forrest precisely the point at issue, namely, what is nature like and what are the causal powers by which nature operates.

 

another issue is those that say, ''i don't believe in creationism, but i believe in God as a matter of faith''. what possible sense does this statement make?

 

None. That person is fooling themselves. Good post, Questor… sorry to nitpick you on the "supernatural" thing.

[questor]

TM, when i use the term Intelligent Design, i am using it from my own perspective. i am not a member of any group or organization nor have i

studied any position papers or research by people involved in this debate. i

reach my conclusions from my own observations and, i hope, common sense.

you seem quite expert in genetics and ID theory. i am merely arguing from a

didactic exposure to genetics, cellular function and biochemistry. i do recognize sound, sensible argument and commend you for more than standing your ground. as this discussion continues, i am sure you recognize the departure from reason by some individuals, which is an interesting phenomenon in it's own right. oddly enough, once certain individuals have reached a decision governed by their reasoning capabilities, they are then almost immune to change even though confronted with irrefutable facts.

herein lies the reason for the difficulty in convincing others.

[TRoutMac]

TM, when i use the term Intelligent Design, i am using it from my own perspective. i am not a member of any group or organization nor have i studied any position papers or research by people involved in this debate. i reach my conclusions from my own observations and, i hope, common sense.

 

Thank you, Questor. I totally understand and quite honestly, I think it's pretty safe to label the designer "supernatural" myself. I do think it's important, in the interest of objectivity, to recognize that as reasonable as that sounds, it's still a subjective opinion and in science, subjective opinions ought to be avoided as much as possible. I must say it really was a "nitpick".

 

once certain individuals have reached a decision governed by their reasoning capabilities, they are then almost immune to change even though confronted with irrefutable facts. herein lies the reason for the difficulty in convincing others.

 

Oh, how true!! Thanks again.

[Vending]

Perhaps you ought to show me how a rubber molecule can store information which describes something other than itself, and how that moecule is also part of an information processing system that reads and executes those instructions.

 

So, let me get this right. You are claiming that DNA is unique because it is the only polymer that is both naturally occuring AND contains information that represents (or can be used to represent) something other than itself. Is that correct? If this is the case, then I will have to think some about what I wish to say about that. but as it seems that we are talking past eachother somewhat right now, i thought that I would make sure that I get your position correct first.

 

Though I must say that singling out DNA from the system of life seems rather odd. Without the other machinery (protiens, enzymes, and ribozymes) DNA would be rather worthless. Why ascribe all this importance to DNA when the enzymes that create DNA are just as important? Curious.

[TRoutMac]

So, let me get this right. You are claiming that DNA is unique because it is the only polymer that is both naturally occuring AND contains information that represents (or can be used to represent) something other than itself. Is that correct?

 

Yes, that is correct. E.coli bacteria have just one chromosome, that is, it has a single DNA strand. (humans have 46 chromosomes, each chromosome a different strand of DNA) The DNA molecule in e. coli carries instructions for building something other than the DNA molecule. The instructions build an e. coli bacteria. A rubber molecule possesses all the "information" that tells you it's a rubber molecule, but it doesn't possess instructions for building something else.

 

Though I must say that singling out DNA from the system of life seems rather odd. Without the other machinery (protiens, enzymes, and ribozymes) DNA would be rather worthless. Why ascribe all this importance to DNA when the enzymes that create DNA are just as important? Curious.

 

Well, in this thread, we're really only talking about DNA and the information it carries. The information is there whether it's inside the nucleus of a cell or not. If it's under the microscope, so to speak, and removed from the machinery of the cell, then the information is still there. It's not useful for building that organism at that point, but the information is still there.

 

The fact that DNA is only one component in a complex information storage and processing mechanism, and that life depends critically on the presence of every part of this machine, is very important and reveals something that evolutionists aren't all that fond of admitting which is, that such a system could not have evolved. If it evolved, then there was at some point a simpler version of it. But a simpler version of it which still functions is impossible… it's already as simple as it could be. But this interdependency doesn't take away from the fact that DNA and RNA are the only molecules which carry this kind of information.