Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

MrHambre: This is the creationism that dares not speak its name.

---

Spoken like a true Nazi.(figured as long as you are calling me a name I don’t deserve, I’d return the favor).

quote:

---

MrHambre: Despite his denials, it's clear that the 'information' he's talking about wouldn't be in DNA unless someone put it there.

---

False. But hey, who am I to say what I believeafter all, isn’t it MrHambre who gets to determine what it is I believe?

quote:

---

MrHambre: Why else would he care what definition of information we accept?

---

Uhm, I was the one taking intelligence and consciousness OUT of the definitions and usage of the term information.

quote:

---

MrHambre: Note he puts the word "random" in scare quotes, like there's any reason to think that point mutations are anything but random.

---

Uhm, there are reasons to think that mutations aren’t truly random: for example, genomes can have hotspots where mutations occur at a higher rate. In such genomes, because the mutations are not evenly distributed, technically, they are not random. There are plenty of debates at sites such as this one that are based on what the word random really means and I didn’t want to get bogged down in such.Now, about your real point. I was not saying that intelligence was involved in directing the mutations, and no rational and honest person would interpret my statements otherwise. Here, let me point out several keys things that show your interpretation to be completely unwarranted.

quote:

---

DNAunion: At this site I’ve not committed to how information got into DNA because HOW has not been my point...just that there IS information in DNA.

​

But now I’ll go ahead and state my position: purely natural processes, such as random mutation and natural selection, can increase the information content of DNA. The information needed to produce extant organisms, encoded in DNA base sequences, was produced from natural manipulations of the DNA information needed to produce yesterday’s organisms, which arose in a similar fashion, and so, back through time until reaching a single common ancestor (if we are going to get technical, possibly a single community in the Woese sense). In other words, common descent of all extant life from a universal common ancestor by means of undirected evolution, with the new information entering the collective genome by means of undirected mutation and natural selection.

---

Note especially that last emphasized part, which explicitly states UNDIRECTED MUTATION. Gee MrHambre, can you read?

quote:

---

MrHambre: And I wonder what sort of processes put the information into that proto-DNA, since 'purely natural' ones are supposed to be so inadequate once we get to the common ancestor.

---

More distortion. I said exactly that oppositethat purely natural process ARE adequate.

quote:

---

MrHambre: Again, if undirected mutation and selection is good enough to explain the amazing diversity of life that exists today, I think it could very well explain the origin of life itself.

---

Please explain how, since before there was life in the OOL sense, there was no mutation and natural selectionby definition.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-20-2004]

quote:

---

Remember, my point in these threads was never about HOW the information got into DNA, just that it IS there.

---

I think the how question is the one that most people would like to see your position on, and if you could clarify it, maybe it would stop the jumping to conclusions that so riles youPlease realise I'm not trying to badger you into an answer - you can refuse if you like - I'm genuinely interested in what you think and it might provide a fresh perspective on your arguments

quote:

---

DNAunion: Remember, my point in these threads was never about HOW the information got into DNA, just that it IS there.

---

quote:

---

I think the how question is the one that most people would like to see your position on, and if you could clarify it, maybe it would stop the jumping to conclusions that so riles you

---

Uhm, dude, I already made a very clear statement about my position on HOW the information that IS in DNA today got there: common descent by undirected evolution. Can you read?Were you thrown off by MrHambre's horrible response? A moment of stupidity or dishonesty on his part seem to be the best or only explanations for his actions. You shouldn't follow in his footsteps.Now be a good little boy and read my statements again.

quote:

---

DNAunion: At this site I’ve not committed to how information got into DNA because HOW has not been my point...just that there IS information in DNA.

​

But now I’ll go ahead and state my position: purely natural processes, such as random mutation and natural selection, can increase the information content of DNA. The information needed to produce extant organisms, encoded in DNA base sequences, was produced from natural manipulations of the DNA information needed to produce yesterday’s organisms, which arose in a similar fashion, and so, back through time until reaching a single common ancestor (if we are going to get technical, possibly a single community in the Woese sense). In other words, common descent of all extant life from a universal common ancestor by means of undirected evolution, with the new information entering the collective genome by means of undirected mutation and natural selection.

---

Come on people...what's so hard to understand about that?[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-21-2004]

DNAunion,Thanks ever so much for calling me a Nazi and asking if I can read.I assure you that I, like most of those here, can read. We've read all your eloquent arguments in defense of Michael Behe and his concept of 'irreducible complexity.' We've read your persistent arguments that DNA contains information, and your assertion that it's a different subject than how the information 'got' there. We've read your declarations that you believe that undirected processes are enough to explain evolution from the LUCA, but that you're not convinced that abiogenesis was the product of the same undirected processes. However, we've also read that you ascribe my suspicion that you're an ID creationist to my 'stupidity,' my 'delusion,' and my inability to read.I'd assume a rational and honest person like yourself would admit if he feels 'purely natural processes' are the original source of the information in the genome of the ancestor of extant life forms. Try as I might to find that here, though, it seems like you're just repeating that these undirected processes are only responsible for our evolution from the LUCA:

quote:

---

But now I’ll go ahead and state my position: purely natural processes, such as random mutation and natural selection, can increase the information content of DNA. The information needed to produce extant organisms, encoded in DNA base sequences, was produced from natural manipulations of the DNA information needed to produce yesterday’s organisms, which arose in a similar fashion, and so, back through time until reaching a single common ancestor (if we are going to get technical, possibly a single community in the Woese sense). In other words, common descent of all extant life from a universal common ancestor by means of undirected evolution, with the new information entering the collective genome by means of undirected mutation and natural selection.

---

Thanks again for the compliment, and looking forward to your characteristic rationality and honesty.regards,
Esteban "Frickin Retard" Hambre

quote:

---

MrHambre: DNAunion, Thanks ever so much for calling me a Nazi and asking if I can read.

---

No, no, no, MrHambre...thank you ever so much for first (1) calling me a Creationist and (2) completely mangling my statements, which you clearly did as a means of launching a personl attack.Please learn the difference between an action and a REaction.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-22-2004]

quote:

---

MrHambre: However, we've also read that you ascribe my [charge] that you're an ID creationist to my 'stupidity,' my 'delusion,' and my inability to read.

---

Which does appear to be the case, now doesn't it. Or do you have another explanation for your completely "whack" response? Didn't think so.Or do you have any real evidence to present that demonstrates that I am a Creationist? Nope, you don't. You can't, because I am not a Creationist.You lose...but thanks for playing. Better luck next time.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-22-2004]

DNAunion,As expected, you have answered the charge that you are an ID creationist with the mere assertion that you are not one. I guess nobody should wonder why you go to such great lengths to defend an ID creationist like Behe, or why you only seem able to give credit to undirected processes for evolution from the first organisms onward, and not for the origin of life itself. Nobody should wonder why you make this distinction, or why you subsequently evade the question of why you make it.The only thing I've lost is the interest in making you clarify your position. The only one playing here is you.regards,
Esteban "Ceci n'est pas un Creationist" Hambre[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-22-2004]

Enough of the patronising responses. I've been perfectly civil with you, please try and show me the same consideration.I'll try and make it clearer for you:

quote:

---

Uhm, dude, I already made a very clear statement about my position on HOW the information that IS in DNA today got there: common descent by undirected evolution. Can you read?

---

That it is not what I asked you.I accept that you have made this perfectly clear, and agree that you have stated it a number of times, but you always miss out a bit. What I asked you is where you think the information that was in the common ancestor(s) came from. The random product of a DNA/RNA world? UFO's? What?

The first is definitely an informal use of the term
information, and means something like 'order'. I've already
said that that, highly restricted definition, fits OK.The second is an extremely loose usage, and not to be confused
with any analysis that has concluded this.The distinction between who is the IDer is, well, trite in my
opinion. If an ETI seeded the earth ... where did they come
from ... or where the ETI's the product of random mutation
and selection.Ultimately any argument that intelligence is REQUIRED for
life to exist hits a limit where a god is also required.

quote:

---

Uhm, there are reasons to think that mutations aren’t truly random: for example, genomes can have hotspots where mutations occur at a higher rate. In such genomes, because the mutations are not evenly distributed, technically, they are not random. There are plenty of debates at sites such as this one that are based on what the word random really means and I didn’t want to get bogged down in such.

---

Are you sure you're not Peter Borger You don't need even distribution (spatially) for the mutations
to be random ... I agree that we shouldn't get borged down
on this one ... but it's hardly compelling.

They may if Wolfram's PDE is a better model of the epidermis than Murray's rxn diffusion equations but all bets are off for me if the node IS a croizatian skyhook reducible amorally. The last few words are like Chomsky's greenly sleeping hierarchy.

I think one can draw many appropriate analogies between computers and DNA, and the one you suggest here has nothing more to recommend it than any other. Consider a Turing machine, the ultimate confusion of program and data. Where one decides to draw the boundary between program and data, while not entirely arbitrary, has few constraints.--Percy

quote:

---

MrHambre: As expected, you have answered the charge that you are an ID creationist with the mere assertion that you are not one.

---

As expected, you have "supported" your charge that I am a creationist with nothing: all we have is your assertion, which goes AGAINST the obvious facts on the table, and your stupid and easily refuted "logic".You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

quote:

---

MrHambre: I guess nobody should wonder why you go to such great lengths to defend an ID creationist like Behe...

---

You're right...they shouldn't. If I defend a black person from unfair cricisims does that make me a black person? Nope. If I defend a woman against unfair criticisms does that make me a woman? Nope."Logic" refuted. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

quote:

---

MrHambre: ... or why you only seem able to give credit to undirected processes for evolution from the first organisms onward, and not for the origin of life itself.

---

Where have I said that it requires God to create life? Nowhere. In fact, as I already pointed out in this thread, when I used to be an IDist I pushed the idea of ETIs, not God.Besides, what's wrong with "I don't know"? How would that make me a Creationist?"Logic" refuted. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

quote:

---

MrHambre: The only thing I've lost is the interest in making you clarify your position.

---

Oh no, you lost lots, like respect. You have shown us all how illogical, irrational, underhanded, and biased you can be. Thanks!You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]

quote:

---

Ooo: I'll try and make it clearer for you:

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DNAunion: Uhm, dude, I already made a very clear statement about my position on HOW the information that IS in DNA today got there: common descent by undirected evolution. Can you read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

That it is not what I asked you.

---

Yes, it is. Let me make it clear for you. Here’s the original exchange.

quote:

---

DNAunion: Remember, my point in these threads was never about HOW the information got into DNA, just that it IS there.

---

quote:

---

Oook: I think the how question is the one that most people would like to see your position on, and if you could clarify it, maybe it would stop the jumping to conclusions that so riles you.

---

Your question, based on my statement, is how the information that IS in DNA got there. In case you didn't know this, IS is present tense. And I already answered how the information that IS in DNA got there, through undirected evolution.Now, if you meant to ask a different question, then it’s your fault that you didn’t.Is that clear enough for you Oook?

quote:

---

Ooook: I accept that you have made this perfectly clear, and agree that you have stated it a number of times,

---

So why did you ask me to explaint it again?

quote:

---

Oook: What I asked you is where you think the information that was in the common ancestor(s) came from.

---

No, that is NOT what you asked me.See, you're confused. You claim that you didn't ask me what you did in fact ask, and you also claim that you asked me what you in fact did not.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]

quote:

---

Biological Molecules and Cell Control
How does a cell store and use genetic information? The cell stores information in the form of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The DNA molecule contains a linear sequence of components called nucleotides. In all cells this sequence of nucleotides serves as a code that specified the amino acid sequence (primary structure) in proteins. By specifying the structure of enzymes and other proteins, DNA directs the metabolism of the cell. (Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R Berg, and Diana W Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p91)

---