coded information in DNA

Word, at some point you've got to stop parroting Perry Marshall and think for yourself. You've just quoted Marshall rebutting someone who apparently claimed that semantic meaning doesn't exist. I never claimed that semantic meaning doesn't exist, therefore your response is a complete non sequitur.What I did do is quote Shannon stating that semantic meaning is irrelevant to the problem of communicating information, and Perry Marshall completely agrees. As he says right at the top of your link (Semantics of DNA): I couldn't have said it better myself. You can't say that Shannon information supports your claims about semantic meaning because Shannon information cannot say anything about semantic meaning.But Marshall goes on to say things that are totally bogus: I don't know why Marshall thinks that Shannon and Weaver would ever feel the need to explicitly state something that no one in their right mind denies, that semantics exist and is important. In his paper Shannon mentions semantic meaning only to state that it doesn't play a role in communicating information. But anyway, a message definitely does not have to have meaning. The simplest example would be testing a communication system where you'd likely begin by sending simple sequences of bits that mean nothing semantically.I continue to suggest that you learn what formal information theory actually says instead of what Perry Marshall says it says. Think for yourself.--Percy

WordBeLogos,Unless there's two Perry Marshall's with the same middle initial, Perry sells his own line of website promotion books, DVDs and seminars: Perry Marshall's Products & Services. This is one good looking guy: You could use Perry's photo as your avatar!Perry's gift is his ability to sell ideas. He doesn't really know anything about information theory. I again suggest you read up a bit and learn what information theory really says, because it doesn't say anything about semantic meaning. All Perry's claims about semantic meaning are not supported by anything within the field of information theory.--Percy

You're pulling this stunt again? This thread is strewn with you making other people's arguments that you don't understand, and in this latest example there's no way to even tell who or what you're replying to.If you want to offer a video as a supporting reference, fine, but first make the point in your own words. I watched the first few seconds, and it's Werner Gitt giving a lecture. So why don't you let us in on what you're up to. Perhaps finally understanding that you can't claim Shannon to support your claims about information and meaning, you're abandoning him for Gitt?Dembski, Gitt and Spetner are all pushing their own non-scientific views on information, but none have bothered going to the trouble of actually connecting their ideas to reality.--Percy

Just to comment yet again on a couple errors you keep making over and over... If you're talking about Shannon information, codes and information are not interchangeable. Information does not require symbols or an encoding/decoding system, not if you're talking about Shannon information. This is figure 1 from Shannon's paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communications. Note that there is no specific encoder or decoder: Shannon includes analog forms of communication in his paper, specifically mentioning radio and television. This is from page 2 of : Clearly the electromagnetic signals that strike the Earth from all directions are f(t,...) type functions, ranging from the very simple to the very complex.And whatever the communication system, by no means does it have to be agreed upon. For example, code breakers decipher codes they haven't agreed upon. That's essentially what scientists do, try to decipher the codes of nature.Shannon goes on to describe the functions of a transmitter, which may or may not perform any encoding: Everything in nature follows these rules of a communication system, whether man-made or not. Perry Marshall is misleading you about Shannon information. It isn't what Perry is telling you it is. I'm giving you correct information from Shannon himself.--Percy

Obviously never one to try thinking things through before posting, once again you've posted a logical contradiction. Obviously human beings are capable of designing the genetic code, but they're a product of the genetic code and by your own statement therefore incapable of designing it. Since the conclusion contradicts the initial premise, you've made a logical contradiction and your statement is false.The problem you've set yourself is how to win a debate on a topic that you don't understand. Making the challenge even greater, the position you're trying to defend is wrong.Science endeavors to follow the evidence wherever it leads without concern for whether we like the answers. You're doing things backward by first choosing the answer and only later looking for evidence. I again suggest that you gather evidence first and draw conclusions later based upon that evidence. Naturally I'd prefer that you begin by gaining a proper understanding of Shannon information, but you have many other misunderstandings you can choose from. Understanding that Shannon information does not include semantic meaning would be a good start.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix grammar and add more clear phrasing.

I'm not so sure that WordBeLogos's problem is his use of inductive reasoning, and I don't share the dim view of it that some seem to have. Inductive reasoning plays a key role in formulating scientific theories, it's how we generalize from the specific. It's also why science is tentative, and why we require validation of theory in the form of successful predictions.I think WordBeLogos has a few significant problems, and one of them isn't with reasoning but with just making things up, throwing out assertions that have no basis in evidence then attempting to use inductive reasoning to support them.He also mistakenly believes that the conclusions of inductive reasoning are as strong as those from deductive reasoning. This is, of course, clearly false. The conclusions of inductive reasoning may be true, but we require validation through successful predictions, and even then any inductive conclusion still remains forever tentative.As I said, I don't think WordBeLogos problems with reasoning have much to do the fact that it is primarily inductive. It's more that he doesn't understand enough about the issues to judge which inferences are valid and which are not. This wouldn't be so bad if he would respond to the criticisms, but he instead just repeats the invalid inferences over and over again.--Percy

In what way is DNA information and part of a communications system? What is it that is actually being communicated, and how is this communication taking place? The answers to these questions should define the framework for discussion in this thread.Shannon defines the communications problem like this: Let's say our messages are binary digits and that we want to send the message "10101011". In Shannon terms, then, the problem of communication is that of reproducing "10101011" at some chosen destination point. This is usually done today by transmitting the bits down a wire or by radio waves, but it can be accomplished by any number of means, like drums or smoke signals.We don't want to get too deep into the details because it would make discussion difficult, but I think we can generally agree that DNA is involved in communicating two different types of information:

1. Communicating itself to the next generation.
   ​
2. Communicating instructions to the rest of the organism.

About #1, communicating itself to the next genertion, this means that offspring receive a copy of their parent's DNA, or of a mixture of both their parent's DNA in the case of sexual reproduction. If we have a very simple organism whose complete DNA is "GCTAACTCG" then the communications problem is how to communicate, to transmit, "GCTAACTCG" to the next generation, to the offspring.About #2, communicating instructions to the rest of the organism, we can use the example of E. coli, whose DNA needs to communicate to the flagellum when to spin and which way to spin. Note that at least on the surface this is not the same problem of communication as Shannon described it. Shannon talked about causing a message from point A to be reproduced at point B. But the DNA nucleotide sequence "GCTAACTCG" is not a message that the flagellum would find useful. The flagellum is expecting a protein, and it is the protein that communicates the message from the DNA. But what is that message if it isn't "GCTAACTCG"?This is where meaning enters the discussion. As Shannon said, "Frequently the messages have meaning," but that "These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem." What the DNA sequence "GCTAACTCG" means to the flagellum when communicated to it via a protein is irrelevant to the problem of how the protein was constructed and transported to the flagellum. In terms of Shannon information we have a message set of size three:

• Do not spin.
• Spin clockwise.
• Spin counterclockwise

How this information is represented by a DNA sequence is irrelevant to the amount of information being communicated, which is: But the specific DNA sequence is not irrelevant to the E. coli. The E. coli is dependent upon very specific DNA sequences producing very specific proteins because nothing else will work, and without a functioning flagellum it will die. It is important to understand that this requirement for very specific DNA sequences by the organism is not part of the communications problem, which is simply how to reproduce a message at point B that comes from point A.So let's say the three different messages were encoded with these DNA sequences:

• TAACTCGGC: Do not spin.
• GCTAACTCG: Spin clockwise.
• ACTCGGCTA: Spin counterclockwise

Change any one of these sequences and the E. coli dies, but information theory doesn't care whether the E. coli lives or dies. From an information theoretic perspective, this encoding would work just as well to communicate the three messages:

• A: Do not spin.
• C: Spin clockwise.
• T: Spin counterclockwise

Of course, not only are these not encodings for any proteins, they aren't even complete codons. This encoding set would undoubtedly kill the E. coli, but from an information theoretic perspective they are completely satisfactory, and that's what Shannon means when he says meaning is irrelevant to the communication problem.--Percy

I haven't read the book, but Wikipedia has an article on it that makes it seem like he uses inductive arguments to make a case against the use of inductive arguments.--Percy

I've already had my say, more times than I would have thought necessary. It would be nice to have a successor thread with some real back and forth. An actual discussion about naturally produced information and codes would be welcome.--Percy