DNA and Information

[Vending]

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.

 

OK. I think i understand your point better now. Lets see....

 

I am afraid that I do not know enough about the rubber molecule to speak specifically about it. However, i think that (if i understand your point) i may use any other molecule and show how it contains information for making something other than itself. I hope this is correct and that your argument does not nessesarily need me to use rubber :Alien:

 

ok so here are just a few examples of molecules that can make something other than themselves.

 

1) Enymes can catalyze reactions that have nothing to do with themselves. For instance, DNA polymerase can catalyze the formation of DNA, however, the enyme itself is not DNA. Therefore, it contains information about how to make something other than itself.

 

2) HgCl2 can catalyse the addition of water to a terminal alkyne to from a ketone. Neither the water nor the alkyne is the same as the catalyst. Thus, HgCl2 contains information for making something completely different than itself.

 

3) The water molecule contains at the highest level 2-fold symmetry (a reflection plane or rotation of 180 degrees). However, once it has frozen the crystals it forms contain a 6-fold symmetry element (three refection planes or an axis of 60 degress rotation). Thus, the crystal that water forms in disinct form water itself (by virture of its different symmetry, it will have differing properties). However, the crystal is made up entirely from water, while being different from the water itself. Thus, water contains information for making something that is different from itself.

 

I think those are at least three examples or something containing information for making something other than itself. The first two are quite obvious while the third is slighly more subtle (but no less true). IN all three cases something new is being made utalizing the information provided by something else. Particularly in the case of catalysis is this obvious where several examples exist were the catalyst contains the nessesary infomration to impose specific stereochemistry on the products of the reaction that it catalyses.

 

 

 

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.

 

I think it is incorrect to claim that the processing mechaism depends on every part ot the machine. This is simply not the case. Prokaryotes do not have the processing unit responsible for removing introns from transcribed DNA, while eukaryotes nessesarily do. The point being that in this simple example, we see that a simpler version not only is not impossible, it EXISTS.

 

The real trick is finding out what the minimal system would be and how large or small this must be. It most assuradly is not the system found in our bodies -- since bacteria get along just fine without all of our DNA processing machinery.

[TRoutMac]

i think that (if i understand your point) i may use any other molecule and show how it contains information for making something other than itself. I hope this is correct and that your argument does not nessesarily need me to use rubber

 

This is correct. I chose rubber because it is a naturally occurring polymer molecule. Any naturally occurring polymer molecule would do.

 

ok so here are just a few examples of molecules that can make something other than themselves.

 

Whoa!! Put the brakes on!! You've just changed the rules of the game from "show how it contains information for making something other than itself" to "make something other than themselves". Obviously any molecule, if you have enough of them, can be used to "make" something else. The question is, do all molecules contain instructions (complex specified information) for building it? My contention is "no."

 

 

1) Enymes can catalyze reactions that have nothing to do with themselves. For instance, DNA polymerase can catalyze the formation of DNA, however, the enyme itself is not DNA. Therefore, it contains information about how to make something other than itself.

 

You're talking about chemical reactions now… things that occur because natural law demands that they occur. No complex specified information has to exist in an enzyme (or does exist) to make this happen.

 

2) HgCl2 can catalyse the addition of water to a terminal alkyne to from a ketone. Neither the water nor the alkyne is the same as the catalyst. Thus, HgCl2 contains information for making something completely different than itself.

 

Same problem. Natural laws demand that these reactions will take place. There is no complex specified information aboard the HgCI2.

 

3) The water molecule contains at the highest level 2-fold symmetry…

 

Ditto. Chemical reactions, no complex specified information. Where's the "code" on these examples?

 

Keep in mind, also, that the sequence of nucleotide base pairs in DNA can be different from one organism to the other. That is, each DNA strand has a different set of instructions, yielding a different organism… all using the same molecule. Another analogy… one CD-R disc might contain plans for a house, another CD-R might contain plans for an apartment building. Both CD-R discs look identical, have the same structure, but the sequence of 1s and 0s on each are different, thus yielding entirely different "organisms". This is merely another way of illustrating what "complex specified information" is and how DNA carries a type of information unique to itself. Every water molecule is exactly alike. Every rubber molecule is exactly alike. The structure of DNA is the same across all organisms with DNA but the sequence (and total number) of base pairs is different on each DNA strand.

 

The problem is, which Questor alluded to at the beginning, there is no natural law which demands that the sequence in DNA to be any specific sequence. If there was such a law, then all DNA would have exactly the same sequence. The law would demand it.

 

I think it is incorrect to claim that the processing mechaism depends on every part ot the machine. This is simply not the case. Prokaryotes do not have the processing unit responsible for removing introns from transcribed DNA, while eukaryotes nessesarily do. The point being that in this simple example, we see that a simpler version not only is not impossible, it EXISTS.

 

The prokaryote system is not a "simpler version" of the eukaryote system. It is a different system altogether. It may use similar mechanisms and structures, but that system also must have all of the components of that system exactly as they are in order for the system to work. This is true of any functionally integrated system. Every part is necessary for it to perform its function. Miss a part, the whole thing fails. You said it before with respect to DNA and its associated information processing system: Without the information processing system, the information in DNA is useless. Well, even if that information processing system was missing ONE part, the entire information processing system would fail… even if DNA were still present. That renders the information processing system effectively "absent" since it cannot function, which makes the information in the DNA useless, and therefore there is no organism and this whole discussion would be moot.

[TRoutMac]

For those of you who still want to de-value the information in DNA and to confuse the issue of information generally, here's an interesting illustration:

 

All of us have been to web sites, called phone numbers, etc. where we are presented with an option like "For more information, click here" or, "For more information, call 555-4444" or whatever. If you went to a manufacturer's web site to shop for a large, expensive high-definition television, for example, and next to each model you see a button which says "Click here for more information", what would be your reaction if, when you clicked the button next to a particular model, you were presented with something like this?:

 

"ncjhssdfhhkjjkssdfhkjnvcxmxghsfygwwetrprejllkpoiudfuhvlknmnmbsfkgsdfyoowehweooilksdfkjxczjbatqqyquuyqwpqweiknkjhfiuqoiuafkfkjhdf"

 

In the context of this hypothetical, does this qualify as "information" to you as a consumer interested in purchasing an expensive TV? Is this helpful to you at all?

[Edge]

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

Again, I'm not referring to a literal intelligence. What about the physic laws, the laws of nature? Those always tend to an equilibrium. Whether the universe was created by accident or any superior being, etc. the laws would still be there.

 

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?

Not exactly. But on an abstract sense, it could be.

 

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

Could be...

 

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.

Well, I guess that clears that up,

 

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.

Let's see it that way.

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.

The code is 1's and 0's. Binary code. It applies to every filetype. But let's stick to JPEG.

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.

I guess that explains it better. Now, we know that on any file transfer, even with floppys, the size of the image would not change. The change in size, on an error, can't change... or can it?

 

It depends, on any program you can resize an image... and then add whatever you want... yeah, I know this involves intelligence, but hey, it's possible.

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.

With more than a million years, and other stuff, I wouldn't say an immense challengue to it. But whatever...

 

In other threads, much has been made about the ambiguity of the term "species" and how that relates to defining micro- vs macro-evolution.

On an electronic file format analogy, a macroevolutionary process can be from JPEG --- > BMP ----> GIF. However, JPEG ---> DOC or XLS can't happen.

 

Why? JPEG, GIF, BMP are formats for images. And DOC and XLS for documents.

 

Now, we know that we can transfer a JPEG to a DOC or XLS file. Just letting you know that even on this analogy, a macroevolutionary process would involve limits within...

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.

Animals developing more defenses, virus mutating to be more dangerous, etc. is an increase in information... unless, I'm mistaken...

 

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

So that explains the Mac in your username? :cup:

[TRoutMac]

Again, I'm not referring to a literal intelligence. What about the physic laws, the laws of nature? Those always tend to an equilibrium. Whether the universe was created by accident or any superior being, etc. the laws would still be there.

 

This skirts an issue that Questor has brought up numerous times… the universe is highly ordered, not chaotic. I don't agree that the laws would "have" to be there. The fact that these laws exist at all is, to many ID proponents, evidence of Intelligent Design. Questor's point has repeatedly been (and quite correctly so) that order is never accidental, or that order never arises from chaos. Now, many people will point to, say, a snowflake and say "but it has order, and it's accidental." Well, yes it does have order. But it's order is the result of natural laws which also have order. I would say that an Intelligent Designer devised these laws, with full knowledge that these laws would create amazing, beautiful little structures like snowflakes.

 

Well, I guess that clears that up

 

Intelligence may have several legitimate definitions or connotations… like military intelligence, etc. But in the ID camp, we're straight with the language. Intelligence means "The capacity to acquire, possess and apply knowledge; The faculty of thought and reason". An inanimate object or a group of inanimate objects (like, say, the entire universe) cannot possess intelligence. It can serve as a "residence" for intelligence, (humans, other animals to lesser degrees) and it can reflect an intelligent designer… very much like a house. A house is not intelligent. But you can clearly see an intelligent designer designed that house (at least in most cases! :cup:) So it reflects the intelligence which designed it and it serves as a residence for intelligence.

 

The code is 1's and 0's. Binary code. It applies to every filetype. But let's stick to JPEG.

 

Right. And I only picked JPEG 'cause it's a file format everyone is familiar with. Codes come in many different shapes and sizes… binary, ELS, etc.

 

Now, we know that on any file transfer, even with floppys, the size of the image would not change. The change in size, on an error, can't change... or can it?

 

Well, no it can't. I've had the download of an image get interrupted and leave me with a partial image, but that's different. But, just for argument's sake, lets' say it could happen. And let's say it could double width of an image, say from 1600 x 1200 to 3200 x 1200. And let's say the original image was the front half of a horse, and then as a result of an error, the number of pixels in width doubled all the additional pixels were arranged and colored such that it just happened to complete the horse in an absolutely seamless fashion, even including the background behind the horse. You wouldn't really say that's possible would you? In other words, you might expect that the extra 1920000 pixels which resulted from an accidental copying error to comprise a garbled, snowy image where the back half of the horse should be, because your original image didn't record the information for the back half of the horse. So if your image doubled in width via some freak copying error, and the extra pixels were arranged such that they completed the horse, where did that extra information come from?

 

It depends, on any program you can resize an image... and then add whatever you want... yeah, I know this involves intelligence, but hey, it's possible.

 

This is interesting… I teach a beginning Photoshop class at a local community college, and one thing we cover in detail is image resolution and resampling. Photoshop has the capability to, for example, double the resolution of your image. You can upsample a 1600 x 1200 image to 3200 x 2400 if you want. But guess what… you encounter the same problem… insufficient information. You only started with 1,920,000 pixels. Where are you gonna get the additional 5,760,000 pixels? Well, Photoshop does it through "interpolation". The software compares the color values of adjacent pixels, calculates an average, and then sticks the new pixels (with the "average" color value) inbetween. At very small increments, this works surprisingly well. But you see the problem? There's no information for those extra pixels. It's gotta come from somewhere, and while amazingly effective in small increments, Photoshop's interpolation is far, far from optimal because it has to guess what those new pixels look like. Fortunately, we have intelligent software designers.

 

With more than a million years, and other stuff, I wouldn't say an immense challengue to it. But whatever...

 

Give it all the time you want. It'll never happen.

 

On an electronic file format analogy, a macroevolutionary process can be from JPEG --- > BMP ----> GIF. However, JPEG ---> DOC or XLS can't happen.

 

Again, changing file formats would be taking the same information and translating into a different code system. DNA is the code system we're talking about. So, you could translate that, as Vending said, into alphabetic letters and print it in a book. But the information is still the same. Again, not representative of macro-evolution.

 

Animals developing more defenses, virus mutating to be more dangerous, etc. is an increase in information... unless, I'm mistaken...

 

Mutations represent a degradation of information, not an increase. Increasing the volume if information by chance, remember, just gives you "snow" (referring back to the image of the horse) it cannot complete the horse. This is what happened with my son's Trisomy 13… yes, a chromosomal mutation occurred which resulted in more information. But since it was accidental, the additional information was far from helpful. You might indeed compare it with "snow".

 

So that explains the Mac in your username?

 

You got it.

[Boerseun]

TRoutMac old buddy old pal:

 

You miss the point.

 

You are wrong. (my opinion)

 

I know. It's not a nice feeling. I feel your pain. People looking at you an saying "My dog, look at that ignorant fella'"...:cup:

 

But that being that, I just felt like I had to chip in here somewhere; I just came from a piss-up with a bunch o' mates o'mine (not one of them Intelligently designed at all) and I felt like I had to make my poor lonely voice (of hopefully objective reason) heard. If you don't like it, well, heck - shite, even... send me a PM an' burn the livin' daylights' outta me.

 

Good night, sleep tight, and do not, under ANY circumstances, let the bedbugs bite.

 

Okay?

 

Cheerio, all you people.

[TRoutMac]

You miss the point. You are wrong. (my opinion)

 

I've missed what point? I'm wrong about what?

 

Yet another standard tactic of someone who has exhausted their source of reasonable arguments. Nothing to back up anything, just dogmatically state that I am wrong, that I miss the point, don't bother to explain why or how. And oh yeah, don't forget to tack on the ever-so-polite "my opinion" in parentheses to make yourself appear open-minded and "tolerant".

 

You'll notice that as I have expressed my disagreement(s) with you, I have always backed them up with a reasoned, science-based argument. That's because I have an argument to back it up with. That you are unable to do the same is unfortunate, but I think it bodes well for my position.

 

Personally, it appears to me that the entire anti-ID "community" knows full well that, scientifically speaking, their goose is cooked. This is why they try to steer the discussion into one of religion instead of arguing on the basis of scientific facts.

[Boerseun]

Boy, that was rich...

[Edge]

This skirts an issue that Questor has brought up numerous times… the universe is highly ordered, not chaotic. I don't agree that the laws would "have" to be there. The fact that these laws exist at all is, to many ID proponents, evidence of Intelligent Design. Questor's point has repeatedly been (and quite correctly so) that order is never accidental, or that order never arises from chaos. Now, many people will point to, say, a snowflake and say "but it has order, and it's accidental." Well, yes it does have order. But it's order is the result of natural laws which also have order. I would say that an Intelligent Designer devised these laws, with full knowledge that these laws would create amazing, beautiful little structures like snowflakes.

That's an entire assumption you made there. You are basically saying that just because you see nature laws as totally being created by someone else, then that someone else must exist. Even when we have no evidence for it, just an assumption or a perception. It's like circular logic: Natural laws reflect intelligence. And intelligence must exist because of natural laws.

 

Intelligence may have several legitimate definitions or connotations… like military intelligence, etc. But in the ID camp, we're straight with the language. Intelligence means "The capacity to acquire, possess and apply knowledge; The faculty of thought and reason". An inanimate object or a group of inanimate objects (like, say, the entire universe) cannot possess intelligence. It can serve as a "residence" for intelligence, (humans, other animals to lesser degrees) and it can reflect an intelligent designer… very much like a house. A house is not intelligent. But you can clearly see an intelligent designer designed that house (at least in most cases! :cup:) So it reflects the intelligence which designed it and it serves as a residence for intelligence.

I guess we are getting out of topic here. Yes, I got what kind of intelligence ID people are looking for or referring to.

 

Well, no it can't. I've had the download of an image get interrupted and leave me with a partial image, but that's different. But, just for argument's sake, lets' say it could happen. And let's say it could double width of an image, say from 1600 x 1200 to 3200 x 1200. And let's say the original image was the front half of a horse, and then as a result of an error, the number of pixels in width doubled all the additional pixels were arranged and colored such that it just happened to complete the horse in an absolutely seamless fashion, even including the background behind the horse. You wouldn't really say that's possible would you?

Wait a moment, I say an increase in information, not an ordered increase on it. And it would be little by little, natural selection or other natural laws would eliminate the gibberish.

 

This is interesting… I teach a beginning Photoshop class at a local community college, and one thing we cover in detail is image resolution and resampling. Photoshop has the capability to, for example, double the resolution of your image. You can upsample a 1600 x 1200 image to 3200 x 2400 if you want. But guess what… you encounter the same problem… insufficient information. You only started with 1,920,000 pixels. Where are you gonna get the additional 5,760,000 pixels? Well, Photoshop does it through "interpolation". The software compares the color values of adjacent pixels, calculates an average, and then sticks the new pixels (with the "average" color value) inbetween. At very small increments, this works surprisingly well. But you see the problem? There's no information for those extra pixels. It's gotta come from somewhere, and while amazingly effective in small increments, Photoshop's interpolation is far, far from optimal because it has to guess what those new pixels look like. Fortunately, we have intelligent software designers.

I never said it would be exactly like that. The original image stays like the same, you just add another info to it. Like a collage or something of the sort.

 

Again, changing file formats would be taking the same information and translating into a different code system. DNA is the code system we're talking about. So, you could translate that, as Vending said, into alphabetic letters and print it in a book. But the information is still the same. Again, not representative of macro-evolution.

I said that to represent limits on info. A bmp and a JPEG are the same thing (images) on a broad sense. But they are quite different, BMP is more heavy, JPEG is compressed, one is more suited for drawings, other for pictures. Or so I see, transfer a JPEG to BMP and there's a change in the pixels.

 

Also, pertaining to this discussion, what kind of molecule do you want? Or what characteristics make DNA unique?

 

You got it.

Well, I gotta say that I'm stuck with Microsoft for at least a few years more.

[Edge]

For those of you who still want to de-value the information in DNA and to confuse the issue of information generally, here's an interesting illustration:

 

All of us have been to web sites, called phone numbers, etc. where we are presented with an option like "For more information, click here" or, "For more information, call 555-4444" or whatever. If you went to a manufacturer's web site to shop for a large, expensive high-definition television, for example, and next to each model you see a button which says "Click here for more information", what would be your reaction if, when you clicked the button next to a particular model, you were presented with something like this?:

 

"ncjhssdfhhkjjkssdfhkjnvcxmxghsfygwwetrprejllkpoiudfuhvlknmnmbsfkgsdfyoowehweooilksdfkjxczjbatqqyquuyqwpqweiknkjhfiuqoiuafkfkjhdf"

 

In the context of this hypothetical, does this qualify as "information" to you as a consumer interested in purchasing an expensive TV? Is this helpful to you at all?

That wouldn't be information, true. However, I don't see how does this relate to DNA.

 

Any molecule, oxygen, potasium, etc. has the same information on that level as DNA.

[TRoutMac]

That wouldn't be information, true. However, I don't see how does this relate to DNA.

 

Well, this is the whole problem. In an obscure sense, it is information. It's "complex" information. Claude Shannon would recognize that as "information". When you say that it's not information, you're correct in the sense that the information carries no message. You reach this conclusion, whether you realize it or not, because there's no specificity in the information. Complex specified information is information that means something, information that tells you something valuable. That's the kind of information contained in DNA.

 

Any molecule, oxygen, potasium, etc. has the same information on that level as DNA.

 

Geeez… I really never imagined this would be this difficult to communicate. DNA most certainly does contain information (complex specified information) that no other molecule contains. No other molecule contains instructions for building something that is not that molecule. Within a DNA molecule are instructions for building and operating an extremely complex animal (or plant). The "information" in a water molecule tells you only that it's a water molecule. It doesn't possess instructions for building an elephant. The distinction between them is really incredibly obvious and it seems sometimes that you must be trying not to see it. Sorry, no offense intended… but folks, it's that obvious.

[TRoutMac]

That's an entire assumption you made there. You are basically saying that just because you see nature laws as totally being created by someone else, then that someone else must exist. Even when we have no evidence for it, just an assumption or a perception. It's like circular logic: Natural laws reflect intelligence. And intelligence must exist because of natural laws.

 

What Questor has said, and I agree completely, is that order does not come from chaos. Obviously, it would be silly for me to believe that natural laws were created by "someone else" if I did not believe, at the very least, that "someone else" could exist. I do not offer the existence of natural laws as any kind of proof that an Intelligent Designer exists. I don't need to… there's far stronger, more convincing evidence than that to be presented.

 

A bmp and a JPEG are the same thing (images) on a broad sense. But they are quite different, BMP is more heavy, JPEG is compressed, one is more suited for drawings, other for pictures. Or so I see, transfer a JPEG to BMP and there's a change in the pixels.

 

I gotcha… I see what you're saying.

 

Also, pertaining to this discussion, what kind of molecule do you want? Or what characteristics make DNA unique?

 

Here's a good illustration… let's see what DNA would look like if it did not contain the kind of information I say it contains and that no other molecule contains:

 

If, with respect to information content, a DNA molecule was just like every other molecule, it would have the same double-helix backbone, and the same four nucleotide base pairs, adenine, thymine, guamine and cytosine. (A, T, G, C) But the sequence of the base pairs might be something like this:

 

AT-CG-TA-GC-AT-CG-TA-GC-AT-CG-TA-GC-AT-CG-TA-GC…

 

Now, let's just imagine that this same sequence repeats endlessly in this "information-poor" DNA molecule. Let's say that the structure of this DNA's backbone required that where AT is found, it is always followed by CG, and CG is always followed by TA and TA is always followed by GC and GC is always followed by AT, ad nauseum. If DNA looked like that, it would be comparable to other polymers in terms of information content. (Also, if DNA looked like that, we wouldn't be here). This DNA's construction, and the sequence of base pairs, would be entirely explicable by reference to laws of chemistry, just as the case with rubber, another polymer molecule.

 

But with "real" DNA, we see something very different. We see a chemical structure that allows nucleotide base pairs to be placed in literally any sequence. How or why those nucleotide base pairs end up in the sequence they do is inexplicable in terms of natural laws or the structure of the backbone. You can stick those base pairs in there in any sequence, as far as laws of chemistry and the structure of DNA are concerned. To see what I mean by that, the structure of the nucleotides requires that A always pair with T and that C always pairs with G. (G cannot pair with A, nor T with C) Of course, we know that the sequence of the base pairs is important if you want to arrive at a certain organism. If you want a particular specimen, you have to arrange the base pairs in the correct sequence. This means that the sequence carries meaning. The repeating "AT-CG-TA-GC" sequence of the "information-poor" DNA molecule doesn't carry any meaning. Complex information? Yes. Complex specified information? No.

 

Hopefully that answers your question and Vending's questions better. Other molecules are like the "information-poor" DNA molecule. The real DNA carries a totally unique kind of information.

 

Well, I gotta say that I'm stuck with Microsoft for at least a few years more.

 

Ahhh, well… that's too bad. I guess Windoze XP isn't all that horrible, though. The current Mac operating system is awesome. Unix-based, incredibly stable, and with the work I do, I give it a good workout.

[Edge]

Well, this is the whole problem. In an obscure sense, it is information. It's "complex" information. Claude Shannon would recognize that as "information".

Well, yes, you are right. It is information, but it's not useful or descifrable information. Although, the latter may be debatable, but it's doubtful.

 

When you say that it's not information, you're correct in the sense that the information carries no message. You reach this conclusion, whether you realize it or not, because there's no specificity in the information. Complex specified information is information that means something, information that tells you something valuable. That's the kind of information contained in DNA.

I see what you are saying, but we gotta be careful with the wording. Information that tells us something valuable? Is true, but the thing is the information should be descifered like, well, any code. Example: You see something on a language you don't know. Obviously, you won't read or understand it. It's not valuable to you; however, we can conclude that it is indeed specified information. Once you learn that language you will be able to descifer and use that information.

 

Not disagreeing with you, just stating clear what I see as specified information. There is more specified information than we can interpret and understand, but it takes time to understand it, of course.

 

Geeez… I really never imagined this would be this difficult to communicate. DNA most certainly does contain information (complex specified information) that no other molecule contains. No other molecule contains instructions for building something that is not that molecule. Within a DNA molecule are instructions for building and operating an extremely complex animal (or plant). The "information" in a water molecule tells you only that it's a water molecule. It doesn't possess instructions for building an elephant. The distinction between them is really incredibly obvious and it seems sometimes that you must be trying not to see it. Sorry, no offense intended… but folks, it's that obvious.

I agree, no other molecule does contain information on how to build any lifeform. However, the thing in here is, another molecule might contain information for building something complex as well. It's just not a lifeform.

 

Let's say a chemical reaction (like Vendor suggested), dunno if it's indeed comparable, but it's important for me to state how do I see this. Again, I may be wrong, I'm not a genious, nor I have all the answers.

 

Anyway, on a chemical reaction, or any process that involves any mix or interaction between two or more molecules, you will see that any change on an atom or the structure of the components will result of making that reaction not the same. Why is that? Because any change on a component's structure, at a molecular level, will result in another element. And this changes the result of a chemical reaction.

 

How does this relates to DNA? Well, we can say that the atoms or the structure of the elements combined may be the instructions or the patterns that determine the outcome of the chemical reaction; just like changes on the structure or components of DNA results on a different characteristics of the lifeform. Follow me?

 

Again, I may have missed the point during this analogy, or completely gone off-topic. However, this shows how did I interpret this. :cup:

 

What Questor has said, and I agree completely, is that order does not come from chaos. Obviously, it would be silly for me to believe that natural laws were created by "someone else" if I did not believe, at the very least, that "someone else" could exist. I do not offer the existence of natural laws as any kind of proof that an Intelligent Designer exists. I don't need to… there's far stronger, more convincing evidence than that to be presented.

Oh well, sorry for the misunderstanding there.:confused:

 

I gotcha… I see what you're saying.

Thanks, I mentioned that example with the filetypes to illustrate how do I understand macroevolution. That's because I have seen people on other forums saying that if macroevolution is indeed real then we would have eagles developing swimming skills, fishes developing wings, and stuff like that. Although, I see their point, they are falling on a mistaken point of view of macroevolution, I think. I do think that even natural laws (whether they were or were not designated) put a limits to these.

 

This is not evidence for or against macroevolution, if I may state, this is just how do I get it from Evolution debates. I think I stated this maybe as a disclaimer before starting a macroevolution debate, which is not the topic on here.

 

Here's a good illustration… let's see what DNA would look like if it did not contain the kind of information I say it contains and that no other molecule contains:

 

If, with respect to information content, a DNA molecule was just like every other molecule, it would have the same double-helix backbone, and the same four nucleotide base pairs, adenine, thymine, guamine and cytosine. (A, T, G, C) But the sequence of the base pairs might be something like this:

 

AT-CG-TA-GC-AT-CG-TA-GC-AT-CG-TA-GC-AT-CG-TA-GC…

 

Now, let's just imagine that this same sequence repeats endlessly in this "information-poor" DNA molecule. Let's say that the structure of this DNA's backbone required that where AT is found, it is always followed by CG, and CG is always followed by TA and TA is always followed by GC and GC is always followed by AT, ad nauseum. If DNA looked like that, it would be comparable to other polymers in terms of information content. (Also, if DNA looked like that, we wouldn't be here). This DNA's construction, and the sequence of base pairs, would be entirely explicable by reference to laws of chemistry, just as the case with rubber, another polymer molecule.

 

But with "real" DNA, we see something very different. We see a chemical structure that allows nucleotide base pairs to be placed in literally any sequence. How or why those nucleotide base pairs end up in the sequence they do is inexplicable in terms of natural laws or the structure of the backbone. You can stick those base pairs in there in any sequence, as far as laws of chemistry and the structure of DNA are concerned. To see what I mean by that, the structure of the nucleotides requires that A always pair with T and that C always pairs with G. (G cannot pair with A, nor T with C) Of course, we know that the sequence of the base pairs is important if you want to arrive at a certain organism. If you want a particular specimen, you have to arrange the base pairs in the correct sequence. This means that the sequence carries meaning. The repeating "AT-CG-TA-GC" sequence of the "information-poor" DNA molecule doesn't carry any meaning. Complex information? Yes. Complex specified information? No.

 

Hopefully that answers your question and Vending's questions better. Other molecules are like the "information-poor" DNA molecule. The real DNA carries a totally unique kind of information.

Well, I guess that clears it up. After reading this, I think you are right on saying that DNA is unique on its type. However, just refer to the chemical reaction analogy I presented, to see if it's indeed comparable.

 

 

Ahhh, well… that's too bad. I guess Windoze XP isn't all that horrible, though. The current Mac operating system is awesome. Unix-based, incredibly stable, and with the work I do, I give it a good workout.

Well, I know this is not a computer thread, but yes, Windows XP is actually acceptable. I used to think that it was entirely crap and that it was a very bad move from Microsoft (Windows 98 worked well for me), but now since I got a PC with XP as the default operating system, I got used to it and got the best of its new features.

 

I haven't tried Mac's long enough, though. I guess on a future I may see them; recently I always hear good reviews from them.:cup:

[MortenS]

Mutations represent a degradation of information, not an increase. Increasing the volume if information by chance, remember, just gives you "snow" (referring back to the image of the horse) it cannot complete the horse. This is what happened with my son's Trisomy 13… yes, a chromosomal mutation occurred which resulted in more information. But since it was accidental, the additional information was far from helpful. You might indeed compare it with "snow".

 

So the following sequence of events does not constitute an increase in information content in DNA?

 

Gene -> Duplication of gene (e.g. by unequal crossing-over, polyploidy or gene conversion) -> divergence of genes (e.g by substititutions of nucleotides)

 

I suggest you take a good look at the globin gene family, e.g the alpha globin gene cluster on chromosome 16, and the beta globin gene cluster at chromosome 11.

 

Alpha globin gene cluster:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=Nucleotide&dopt=GenBank&val=14523048

 

Beta globin gene cluster:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db=Nucleotide&dopt=GenBank&val=28380636

 

Just as an example I will present the beta globin gene cluster in more detail:

It encodes the following proteins

HBE1 - epsilon globin

HBG2 - G-gamma globin

HBG1 - A-gamma globin

HBD - delta globin

HBB - beta globin

 

Here is the amino acid sequences for these proteins (I could equally well done the nucleotide sequence, but the amino acid sequence shortens this list a bit):

 
#Homo_sapiens_epsilon_globin+HBE1 MVHFTAEEKA AVTSLWSKMN VEEAG [ 25]
#Homo_sapiens_G-gamma_globin+HBG2 MGHFTEEDKA TITSLWGKVN VEDAG [ 25]
#Homo_sapiens_A-gamma_globin+HBG1 MGHFTEEDKA TITSLWGKVN VEDAG [ 25]
#Homo_sapiens_delta_globin+HBD    MVHLTPEEKT AVNALWGKVN VDAVG [ 25]
#Homo_sapiens_beta_globin+HBB     MVHLTPEEKS AVTALWGKVN VDEVG [ 25]
#Homo_sapiens_epsilon_globin+HBE1 GEALGRLLVV YPWTQRFFDS FGNLS [ 50]
#Homo_sapiens_G-gamma_globin+HBG2 GETLGRLLVV YPWTQRFFDS FGNLS [ 50]
#Homo_sapiens_A-gamma_globin+HBG1 GETLGRLLVV YPWTQRFFDS FGNLS [ 50]
#Homo_sapiens_delta_globin+HBD    GEALGRLLVV YPWTQRFFES FGDLS [ 50]
#Homo_sapiens_beta_globin+HBB     GEALGRLLVV YPWTQRFFES FGDLS [ 50]
#Homo_sapiens_epsilon_globin+HBE1 SPSAILGNPK VKAHGKKVLT SFGDA [ 75]
#Homo_sapiens_G-gamma_globin+HBG2 SASAIMGNPK VKAHGKKVLT SLGDA [ 75]
#Homo_sapiens_A-gamma_globin+HBG1 SASAIMGNPK VKAHGKKVLT SLGDA [ 75]
#Homo_sapiens_delta_globin+HBD    SPDAVMGNPK VKAHGKKVLG AFSDG [ 75]
#Homo_sapiens_beta_globin+HBB     TPDAVMGNPK VKAHGKKVLG AFSDG [ 75]
#Homo_sapiens_epsilon_globin+HBE1 IKNMDNLKPA FAKLSELHCD KLHVD [100]
#Homo_sapiens_G-gamma_globin+HBG2 IKHLDDLKGT FAQLSELHCD KLHVD [100]
#Homo_sapiens_A-gamma_globin+HBG1 TKHLDDLKGT FAQLSELHCD KLHVD [100]
#Homo_sapiens_delta_globin+HBD    LAHLDNLKGT FSQLSELHCD KLHVD [100]
#Homo_sapiens_beta_globin+HBB     LAHLDNLKGT FATLSELHCD KLHVD [100]
#Homo_sapiens_epsilon_globin+HBE1 PENFKLLGNV MVIILATHFG KEFTP [125]
#Homo_sapiens_G-gamma_globin+HBG2 PENFKLLGNV LVTVLAIHFG KEFTP [125]
#Homo_sapiens_A-gamma_globin+HBG1 PENFKLLGNV LVTVLAIHFG KEFTP [125]
#Homo_sapiens_delta_globin+HBD    PENFRLLGNV LVCVLARNFG KEFTP [125]
#Homo_sapiens_beta_globin+HBB     PENFRLLGNV LVCVLAHHFG KEFTP [125]
#Homo_sapiens_epsilon_globin+HBE1 EVQAAWQKLV SAVAIALAHK YH [147]
#Homo_sapiens_G-gamma_globin+HBG2 EVQASWQKMV TGVASALSSR YH [147]
#Homo_sapiens_A-gamma_globin+HBG1 EVQASWQKMV TAVASALSSR YH [147]
#Homo_sapiens_delta_globin+HBD    QMQAAYQKVV AGVANALAHK YH [147]
#Homo_sapiens_beta_globin+HBB     PVQAAYQKVV AGVANALAHK YH [147]

 

Is it really that difficult to see that these sequences may be due to duplications and subsequent divergence?

[TRoutMac]

So the following sequence of events does not constitute an increase in information content in DNA?

 

I think that depends entirely on what "kind" of information you're talking about.

[MortenS]

In what "kind" of information concept does this scenario not constitute an increase in information? I really wonder....

 

Using Shannon, it is enough with a mere duplication to increase information, but since you seem to require "new meaning" in addition, subsequent mutations in the duplicated sequences leading to a difference in functions should qualify as a difference in "meaning"

[TRoutMac]

Once you learn that language you will be able to descifer and use that information. Not disagreeing with you, just stating clear what I see as specified information. There is more specified information than we can interpret and understand, but it takes time to understand it, of course.

 

I gotcha. At first, no one knew what the language on the Rosetta Stone was. It was unmistakable as "information" even though we may not have known what it said. Or, maybe a better illustration is the interception of an enemies coded instructions, where we know there's information in there and we have cryptographers on hand to "break the code" and find out what it says. We've done the same with DNA. We have, at least for the most part, "broken the code".

 

I agree, no other molecule does contain information on how to build any lifeform. However, the thing in here is, another molecule might contain information for building something complex as well. It's just not a lifeform.

 

Well, unfortunately I don't think this is correct. We have already learned and "understand" the "information" in a rubber molecule. We know that it does not contain any instructions for building anything else. It consists of this molecule and that molecule and this other molecule (not looking up the ingredients… I think it's mostly carbon, not that it matters) and the way those molecules are attached, arranged and assembled is easily explained by reference to the molecules' shape… natural laws of chemistry.

 

Anyway, on a chemical reaction, or any process that involves any mix or interaction between two or more molecules, you will see that any change on an atom or the structure of the components will result of making that reaction not the same. Why is that? Because any change on a component's structure, at a molecular level, will result in another element. And this changes the result of a chemical reaction.

 

Agreed. Physical, natural laws determine that certain molecules react with certain other molecules due to their physical molecular structure.

 

How does this relates to DNA? Well, we can say that the atoms or the structure of the elements combined may be the instructions or the patterns that determine the outcome of the chemical reaction; just like changes on the structure or components of DNA results on a different characteristics of the lifeform. Follow me?

 

If you wanna get really loose with the language, yes… you could say this. But you're bending and shaping the term "instructions" to fit where it really doesn't fit in the same way. There is no physical, natural law that can explain why the sequencing of DNA is what it is in any given DNA strand. The reactions you're talking about are inevitable when certain molecules get together. They have to happen. The sequencing of DNA base pairs is not inevitable. Time to recycle the newspaper illustration… laws of chemistry make it inevitable that ink will stick to the paper. But laws of chemistry cannot explain the shape and sequencing of letters and words which communicate an idea.

 

Well, I guess that clears it up. After reading this, I think you are right on saying that DNA is unique on its type. However, just refer to the chemical reaction analogy I presented, to see if it's indeed comparable.

 

Cool.

 

I haven't tried Mac's long enough, though. I guess on a future I may see them; recently I always hear good reviews from them.:cup:

 

In my ten years of Mac ownership, I've had one power supply failure, covered under warranty. They are durable machines. I currently own six Macs ranging from almost 2 years old to 20 years old, and even though four of these are basically nothing more than conversation pieces, (so old they are literally useless) they will all start up and run.