Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

Oh .... and you do realise that college texts are
dumbed down so undergrads can follow them ... right?
And that you should look to primary literature ....

---

Did it again. Picked a Science magazine at random and looked in the front for an article that dealt with DNA and bingo...first try.

quote:

---

"These genetic elements "jump" from old to ne DNA locations, a process that mutates genes, rearranges chromosomes, and transmits genetic information between cells." (Transposase Team Puts a Headlock on DNA, Tanya L. Williams and Tania A. Baker, Science Vol. 289, p73)

---

Again, I realize this does not meet your exact requirements, but the fact that I had success in finding statements indicating DNA contains information, twice in a row, first try each time, by picking copies at random, does show that one of the two most repspected general science publications in the world continually and repeatedly states that DNA contains information.**********************************
PS: Before responding, read this finalized reply: http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

Oh .... and you do realise that college texts are
dumbed down so undergrads can follow them ... right?
And that you should look to primary literature ....

---

I was finally able to spend more than 2 minutes looking through the issues of Science I mentioned and found this right away in one of the reasearch papers:

quote:

---

DNA transposable elements include simple insertion sequences, transposons and some bacteriophages in eubacteria, and similar elements in archeobacteria and eukaryotes. They have the potential to remodel genomes and to facilitate the lateral transmission of genetic information such as antibiotic resistance determinants. (Three-Dimensional Structure of the Tn5 Synaptic Complex Transposition Intermediate, Douglas R. Davies, et. al., Science vol 289, No. 5476, (7 July 2000), p77)

---

There you go...primary literature stating that DNA contains genetic information.*********************************As icing, here is a total of 3 other quotes from the 3 Science issues I happened to look at - one quote from each: success on each attempt. These aren't research papers, but they are quotes from one of the two most respected peer-reviewed general science journals in the world.

quote:

---

The absence of an enslaved nucleophile (the 2’-hydroxyl group) at each phosphodiester linkage makes DNA ~100,000-fold more stable than RNA under physiological conditions. Similarly, DNA phosphodiester bonds are 100-fold more resistant to hydrolytic degradation than the peptide bonds of proteins. This stability, coupled with the complementary character of nucleotides, makes DNA an ideal molecule for information storage and transfer.

​

​

Deoxyribozymes have been created that cleave DNA by an oxidative mechanism or by depurination. These deoxyribozymes eliminate a nucleotide from the target DNA chain, and therefore might be valuable in applications where the loss of sequence-encoded information is tolerated or perhaps even desirable. (Making Catalytic DNA, Ronald R Breaker, Science, Vol 290, No. 5499, (15 Dec 2000), p2095, 2096)

---

quote:

---

"These genetic elements "jump" from old to new DNA locations, a process that mutates genes, rearranges chromosomes, and transmits genetic information between cells." (Transposase Team Puts a Headlock on DNA, Tanya L. Williams and Tania A. Baker, Science Vol. 289,No. 5476, (July 7 2000), p73)

---

quote:

---

"The information is in the primary DNA sequence, as Watson and Crick told us," Rosenfeld says." (New Clues to How Genes are Controlled, Jean Marx, Science, Vol. 290, No. 5494, (10 Nov 2000), p1067)

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

What do you mean by 'low prob. protein'?

---

I've made that very clear in my earlier exchanges in this and/or the other thread about information.

quote:

---

The probability of producing (at random) any particular
protein must be related to the number of amino-acids
required ... so the highest probability for any protein
would be the probability of the 'longest' protein (or that
with the most amino-acids).

---

Uhm, you want to rethink that? Here, let me give you clue. Which of the following would have the HIGHEST probability of being produced by appropriate chance mechanisms alone.1) HI
2) HELLO WORLD
3) YO DUDE, HOW'S IT HANGING[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

Repeatedly bleating on about how 'everyone' says that DNA
contains information is not indicative of a critical approach.

---

Repeatedly ignoring tons of mainstream scientific support - from college biology and chemistry texts, and from books by Ph.D.s for the general public, from the primary literature, from web pages related to published articles, and from even the lowly dictionary - is not indicative of a rational approach.

quote:

---

Oh ... and DNA does not direct cellular function

---

Of course it does.

quote:

---

direct 2a: to regulate the activities or course of (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

---

Yep, information stored in DNA base sequences sure does regulate the activities of cellular function.

quote:

---

Ohand DNA does not control genetic traits.

---

Of course it does.

quote:

---

control 2a: to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

---

Yep, genetic information stored in DNA sure does exercise a directing influence over genetic traits.

I was just at the book store and, after looking in the index for Information Theory (pages 92-96), skimmed through a few pages of a 2003 book by Richard Dawkins (Amazon.com). I think both Peter and Crashfrog should read that section: it explains pretty clearly how DNA contains information, and shows information theory being applied to DNA.

Actually right now I'm reading a book called "The Science Book", a series of brief essays on the 250 most influential discoveries in science, math, and engineering. There's an essay by Dawkins about "The Digital Genome". Quite interesting.

I've already explained most if not all of this in my own words, but perhaps some would prefer to hear it from some authors of college genetics texts. This was as basic as I could find: it's at the very beginning of the text where the authors hold the readers' hands and walk them through the fundamentals within just a few pages.

quote:

---

Basic Concepts of Genetics

​

​

What is the center of heredity in a cell?
Eukaryotic organisms are characterized by the presence of a nucleus that contains the genetic material [i.e., DNA]. In prokaryotes, such as bacteria, the genetic material [i.e., DNA] exists in an unenclosed but recognizable area of the cell called the nucleoid region.

​

What is the genetic material?
In eukaryotes and prokaryotes, DNA serves as the molecule storing genetic information.

​

How is DNA organized to serve as the genetic material?
DNA, although single stranded in a few viruses, is usually a double-stranded molecule organized as a double helix. Contained within each DNA molecule are hereditary units called genes, which are part of a larger element, the chromosome.

​

What is a gene?
In simplest terms, the gene is the functional unit of heredity. In chemical terms, it is a linear array of nucleotides — the chemical building blocks of DNA and RNA.

​

​

What are the sources of genetic variation?
Classically, there are two sources of genetic variation: chromosomal mutations and gene mutations. Gene mutations result from a change in the chemical information stored in DNA, collectively referred to as an organism’s genotype. Such a change may include substitution, duplication, or deletion of nucleotides, which compose this chemical information. Alternative forms of a gene, which result from mutation, are called alleles.

​

How does DNA store genetic information?
The sequence of nucleotides in a segment of DNA constituting a gene is present in the form of a genetic code. This code specifies the chemical nature (the amino acid composition) of proteins, which are the end product of genetic expression. Mutations are produced when the sequence of nucleotides is altered.

​

How is the genetic code organized?
There are four different nucleotides in DNA, each varying in one of its components, the nitrogenous base. The genetic code is a triplet; therefore, each combination of three nucleotides constitutes a code word. Almost all possible triplet codes specify one of 20 amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins.

​

How is the genetic code expressed?
The coded information in DNA is first transferred during a process called transcription into a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. The mRNA subsequently associates with the cellular organelle, the ribosome, where it is translated into a protein molecule.

​

Are there exceptions where proteins are not the end product of a gene?
Yes. For example, genes coding for ribosomal RNA (rRNA), which is part of the ribosome, and for transfer RNA (tRNA), which is involved in the translation process, are transcribed but not translated. Therefore, RNA is sometimes the end product of stored genetic information.
(Concepts of Genetics: Fifth Edition, William S Klug & Michael R Cummings, Prentice Hall, 1994, p6-8)

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-29-2003]

OK, maybe I'm not making myself too clear. I'll try again if that's alright?Once you get the general statement of "DNA contains the information required to produce proteins in cells today" how is this milestone relavent to the discussion of evolution and specifically the area of intelligent design?Why do Peter and Crashfrog want to disagree so strongly with you if you just leave the statement there? Surely such a simple statement that can then be interpreted in quite a few ways has no bearing on the debate (on either side).It has to be then qualified: By saying "...and therefore protein sythesis could not have evolved by chance" for example.

quote:

---

OK, maybe I'm not making myself too clear.

---

Must be the case since I have made myself perfectly clear.

quote:

---

Once you get the general statement of "DNA contains the information required to produce proteins in cells today" how is this milestone relavent to the discussion of evolution and specifically the area of intelligent design?

​

Why do Peter and Crashfrog want to disagree so strongly with you if you just leave the statement there?

---

You'll have to ask Peter and Crashfrog why they would disagree so strongly with such a self-evident, noncontroversial statement as "DNA contains information".********************************
Okay, let's try another angle...analogy time.Suppose the two-sided discussion centered around classical physics instead of biology and Crashfrog and Peter made the statement that F > ma. I step in and say, "No, F = ma", then support it with quotes from multiple, mainstream college texts. But the other two refuse to budge and continue to argue against my straightforward and noncontroversial statement F = ma. Should I just drop out and let them have their way? Of course not. Or should I continue to defend F = ma? Of course. So that analogy explains why I kept pounding away on the scientific fact that DNA contains information: that statement is correct and the opposing statement is wrong. It's as simple as that.Continuing the analogy. Why is it important to get everyone to agree on F = ma, rejecting F > ma? Because the rest of the discussion, no matter what side one is on, depends upon all participants agreeing on the foundations that premises and arguments will be based. Arguments based on F > ma are bogus and should not even be considered. The fundamental facts must be agreed upon or else a debate is senseless.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-04-2004]

OK,Since you made this statement: Assume then that I have agreed that there is some kind of information contained in the sequence of DNA. Where do you want to take the argument from there? If I could establish why you would want to establish DNA as information then maybe my questions can be a bit less irritatingly repeatative (as I sure they are at the moment) because I can't see the need to accept that fact as essential for the argument at all.

quote:

---

Assume then that I have agreed that there is some kind of information contained in the sequence of DNA. Where do you want to take the argument from there?

---

Nowhere.In fact, I was all done in this thread, which is NOT what one would predict if, as so many misguided people seem to believe, I had an ulterior motive.The only reason I posted in this thread again is because I saw yet another attempt by someone - you - to make it seem that I had some hidden agenda.Let me make this perfectly clear again -- my supporting the statement "DNA contains information" has no ulterior motive. Establishing that self-evident and noncontroversial fact as being fact is the only purpose.

quote:

---

If I could establish why you would want to establish DNA as information then maybe my questions can be a bit less irritatingly repeatative

---

I have already made it clear why...you just aren't listening.

DNAU,Forgive me if you think I am pestering you, I am only trying to establish your point of view. I am not accusing of having some dark ulterior motive, simply saying that "DNA contains information" doesn't seem to have that much meat on it as an argument.If that is the first rung on your argument, the thing that must be accepted before anything else, I wanted to know what the second rung was. If you just want to have the statement accepted and left there, then my next question was: what's the point of that? I just don't see what the point of it is. As I have already said, I am rather ignorant of why 'information' is so important.If you are participating in other threads that are better suited to debating your position on evolution etc then I apologise - can you please point me to them?The reasons I assumed you wanted to discuss things like this on this thread are1) the title of this section - Intelligent Design - naturally made me think that you were discussing things based on the existance (or lack) of an Intelligent Designer.2) You making statements like this:

quote:

---

Hitting upon a certain core protein once by random incorporation of amino acids might be a fluke. Twice, you might as well rely upon winning the state lottery ten times in a row. 50 trillion times is just blantantly ridiculous - it's simply not going to happen by chance alone. Then, multiply that by another 6 billion successes and we can clearly see that there MUST be some kind of information being fed to ribosomes that is responsible for repeatedly producing a specific protein.

---

quote:

---

So that LOGIC is straightforward, and has NOTHING to do with any Creationist type "poofing" into existence of a human or cell, nor any IDist notion of inteligence planting the information. It's stating the simple logical fact that there MUST be information stored in DNA to construct a certain low probability protein billions of trillions of times, consistently and accurately; nothing about supernatural beings or intelligent designers.

---

It is things like this that suggest that you do want to discuss what accepting DNA as data means. I honestly wanted to know what your opinion was as it doesn't look like you are coming from a typical creo/evo standpoint, and I'm just interested.If you do want to just leave it at that then that's fine, I'll let this thread die.If that is the case, see you around.

You know, DNAUnion, you could clear up your "hidden agenda" accusations once and for all by stating what you believe on the subject. Of course, that would deny you your ability to argue from a seat of impunity, casting vague doubt on others' theories while not having to have yourself subject to the same.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Forgive me if you think I am pestering you, I am only trying to establish your point of view.

---

My "point of view" here is simply that DNA contains information.

quote:

---

I am not accusing of having some dark ulterior motive, simply saying that "DNA contains information" doesn't seem to have that much meat on it as an argument.

---

I already pointed out, either in this or the other thread, that I don't consider myself to be putting forth any kind of a real argument, but rather just pointing out a fact.

quote:

---

If that is the first rung on your argument, the thing that must be accepted before anything else, I wanted to know what the second rung was.

---

Mine was just a one-rung ladder. If others want to take it from that base rung and make arguments one way or the other, that's their business. But everyone should first make it up to that same rung in order for any deeper discussion to not be nonsense.

quote:

---

If you just want to have the statement accepted and left there, then my next question was: what's the point of that?

---

Same point as fighting for F = ma if some people were to erroneously state, and continue to defend, F > ma.

quote:

---

The reasons I assumed you wanted to discuss things like this on this thread are

​

1) the title of this section - Intelligent Design - naturally made me think that you were discussing things based on the existance (or lack) of an Intelligent Designer.

---

I tried to make it clear, repeatedly, that I wasn't arguing HOW the information got there, just that it IS there.

quote:

---

2) You making statements like this:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitting upon a certain core protein once by random incorporation of amino acids might be a fluke. Twice, you might as well rely upon winning the state lottery ten times in a row. 50 trillion times is just blantantly ridiculous - it's simply not going to happen by chance alone. Then, multiply that by another 6 billion successes and we can clearly see that there MUST be some kind of information being fed to ribosomes that is responsible for repeatedly producing a specific protein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that LOGIC is straightforward, and has NOTHING to do with any Creationist type "poofing" into existence of a human or cell, nor any IDist notion of inteligence planting the information. It's stating the simple logical fact that there MUST be information stored in DNA to construct a certain low probability protein billions of trillions of times, consistently and accurately; nothing about supernatural beings or intelligent designers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It is things like this that suggest that you do want to discuss what accepting DNA as data means.

---

Out of the "bajillion" possible amino acid sequences, how do our cells make just the specific proteins that they need, trillions of times over? By chance? No. DNA base sequences store the information ribosomes need to make those protein. That's the point I was making, nothing about HOW that information got there, just that it IS there.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-05-2004]