coded information in DNA

Who created English?

Do you know what Shannon Information is? If I take a cube of ice and then hit it with a hammer, is there more or less information afterwards?

That's why I asked you about Shannon information. Shannon information is not equivalent to the definition your talking about, so you can't invoke it to help your argument. Shannon information is, essentially, the minimum amount of data required to represent an object. Shannon information is interesting, because it is tied to the second law of thermodynamics; and it's also increased by smashing an ice cube.So, now, you've accepted that Shannon information has nothing to do with what your're talking about, let's investigate your ideas a bit further.According to your notion of information, is there more information is a single strand of DNA, or in that DNA and a copy of it? How about nucleotide sequence CGACGACGA, does it contain more or less information than the the sequence CGACGA? How do we compare the information content of the sequence CGACGA and the sequence CGATGA?

It seems to me that central to your argument is the assertion that the functionality of DNA is seperable from its form. But this is not so.It is true that gene coding could, in principle, be transferred to another format without effecting the nature of the protein produced - it is not generally true that a protein so produced would work. Take, just for example, the lactose operon in E. Coli. This gene is preferentially activated in the presence of lactose, and repressed in its absence. This is achieved by a number of proteins, of which the key player binds to the DNA helix between the -35 and -10 boxes of the promoter region* and is detached by allosteric modification when it binds to lactose. Were DNA - in any way - different from its actual form this wouldn't work; so, you see, DNA is not separable from its chemical form because the system it codes for requires that chemical form.* the -35 box and -10 are short nucleotide sequences recognised by the enzymes responsible for triggering gene->protein decoding, without them a gene is not produced. They too, by the way, form another example of how DNA code is not separable from the chemistry used to encode it.

Hi WordBeLogos,Could you perhaps address your replies to the individual posts you are replying to using the small 'reply' buttons on each post rather than aggregating replies to multiple posts into one message? It would make the thread easier to follow. Thank you. This seems rather a non-sequitor, you've not addressed my point. Let's look at your definition once again: But the "message" transmitted by DNA is not independent of the communication medium; many of the proteins coded by DNA require the communication medium to be DNA in order to fulfil their function.

In my post 87 I described (in very outline) how an E. coli bacterium regulates the production of the proteins required to metabolism lactose to only be expressed when lactose is present. This mechanism only works because certain proteins coded for by the DNA can attach themselves to the chemical structure of the DNA molecule.So the message (protein) actually works because the medium by which it is communicated is the DNA molecule. This is not equivalent to say, the message of a music CD. You could take that message and transmit it any way you like (MP3, AM radio, FM radio, vinyl, etc.) and you'd get the same music out the end.The proteins (and other bits) produced by DNA require DNA to be the medium in which they are encoded in order to function - that is, in order to produce a working cell, plant or animal.Does that clarify my meaning for you?

Well, if you've learned a tiny, little bit about DNA you'll have learnt that it codes for proteins with arbitary codons which are translated into amino acids to make a protein. Creationists are usually pretty simplistic in their understanding of Biology so I'm guessing that's as far as they got. If you think that's all there is to DNA then you've got a code for a sequence of amino acids to make a protein that you could represent in any form you like and still have it work* so if DNA was as simple as that then it would meet WordAsLogos's notion of a code.So, like most Creationism, you begin with a sloppy version of a scientific fact, stir it up with some dubious quotes and season with some questionable logic and there you go: proof evolution didn't happenGod created the universe in six days.* - and, thinking about it, this is actually done with synthetic polypeptides.

Hi WordBeLogos,For as long as you persist in merely parotting other peoples ideas this discussion is going to go nowhere. Please try to stick to ideas expressed in your own words using arguments and theory that you personally understand.Anyway, onwards to your new and changed notion of what a code is: Okay. Could you elucidate what the encoder is in DNA? What the decoder is? And how it meets the notion of "agreed upon symbols"? No, no, no, no! You can't do that. Information is a fundamentally different idea to code; especially if you're going to bring Shannon's ideas into it. To see the difference consider the really simple alphabet shifting code (B=A, C=B ... Z=A) - that's the code. Now consider the coded message: bpeft - that message contains information - a different amount of information than the message jogpsnbujpo.

Um, no: that would be hasty generalisation. The fallacy of composition would be I can pick up any of the bricks in the wall therefore I can pick up the wall.

No, it is not. For the reasons I explained earlier in the thread.Gene regulation, among other processes, would not function if DNA was changed for another medium.

I have a feeling you're wrong about this; there is variation in bee waggle dances and, IIRC, it's cultural rather than genetic in transmission.I don't have time to go hunting for references right now. I'll look later.