Data, Information, and all that....

Here's a much more reasonable explanation: the data or information content of the words is not in the words, it's in our heads. Therefore it's easy for our heads to reconstruct the meaning because the meaning is already there. Software is software. If it can't be done by a computer then it isn't software. You know if I was as consistently wrong about stuff as you are I'd sure make a lot less smart-ass comments. But that's just me, I guess.

The information. Didn't I make that clear?When we read words, the information isn't in the words. It's in our heads.When we read DNA, the information isn't in the DNA, it's in our heads. Therefore information theory is irrelevant to biology, because DNA contains no information.Apparently you missed the point.

Well, not quite right...Evolutionists want to promote that "because we observe new species arising from common decendants, this process is sufficient to account for all species, past and present."I fail to see how that "oversteps the bounds of science" or whatever. Looks like a natural extrapolation from observed trend to me, and what could be more scientific?Now, if you feel that contradicts some metaphysical position, too damn bad. Science overrides metaphysics.

Nope. Why would I be kidding? Why would something that humans invent and make up - information - be in DNA, a naturally occuring molecule?There's no more information in DNA than there is in a snowflake. The "information stored in my DNA"? Surely you're kidding. The reason I'm not a fruit fly or a cactus is because my DNA is structured differently in such a way that it catalyzes the formation of different protiens.Oh, sure - you can find how much information DNA could store, but in order for me to believe that there is already information in the DNA, you'll have to tell me who put it there.

Actually it's more of a case of me being ignorant of what information is, and no amount of "biologists say there's information in DNA" is going to tell me what information is.Thank you for an outrageous number of quotes that point out biologists referring to the information of DNA. They amount to little more than a big argument from authority so I guess I can conclude there's no information in DNAunion, either.Tell you what. Tell me what information is, and I'll tell you if I think that's in DNA or not.

No, you've shown that some biologists consider DNA to contain something that could be described as information. Since arguments from authority don't hold you've fallen far short of proving there's information in DNA.Look, I don't waste time with arguments from authority, or the people who promulgate them. If you can't tell me what the information is then it's not worth talking to you.Which of these sequences has the most information:AGTCAAGTAGAGAAA or GTCAGGTGTGCGAGA?

True. Well, if you refuse to argue with a person who refuses to accept fallacious reasoning, I can't say I find that an enormous loss.

You keep making this argument, where you equate the tendancy of the structure of DNA to remain the same with information content of DNA. Is it your belief then that a sequence of DNA that contained no information would drasticaly change in structure with every duplication?Would it be possible, to you, for the structure of DNA to remain constant without containing information? Or must every structure that tends to be duplicated contain information?

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.

Not sure but I think you're wrong about this. General relativity was required to correct the model of Mercury's orbit to match observation - Newtonian mechanics was insufficient. So in that sense, you need relativity to get a probe to Mercury because without relativity Mercury isn't where you think it is. Also relativity is necessary to make GPS work right, I understand.

I'm not finding this a compelling argument. DNA does what it does because of a physical sequence of base pairs. That's a configuration of matter like any other. Asking "why doesn't your DNA change into that of a squid" is like asking why the chair I'm sitting on doesn't spontaneously change into an ottoman. Are you saying my chair contains information?Humans give rise to humans because DNA replicates its structure. Plenty of things replicate their own structure, like crystals. Do crystals contain information? Does it? Do salt crystals contain information? Do snowflakes?I just don't understand how you come to the conclusion that only the presence of information can allow a structure to make copies of itself.

How can I be quoting you out of context? Your message almost immediately precedes mine. I'm not quoting you out of context, I'm quoting the part of your message I'm responding to. I wasn't aware that I had to quote your message in it's entirety in order for the flow of dialogue to be preserved. Well, then, answer the question that you might have understood if you weren't so busy acting like an asshole:What's different about humans and trees, which replicate themselves from crsytals, which replicate themselves? If a crystal can replicate itself without recourse to information, why can't a human or a tree? What's the relevant difference? Fine, argue from ad hominem. It only makes you look bad. Nonetheless I've asked a very reasonable question: why is information necessary for something to replicate itself?

The problem (besides DU acting like an asshole at the slighest indication that we're not likely to simply bow to his encyclopedic arguments from authority and odious posting habits) is that I don't see why the only explanation for how certain sequences of base pairs always produce the same effects has to be some nebulous information.I'm a human and not a squid because the sequence of base pairs I have produces humans. Why does it do that? Because it catalyzes the formation of protiens that result in humans. "Information" may be a convinient way to describe that process but it's hardly the only one.

Duh.Why do they do that? I don't see that "information" has to be the only explanation. That's all. If I can explain how a crystalline structure gives rise to copies of its structure without bringing "information" into it, why does "information" have to be part of the explanation of DNA doing the same thing? That's the only part of your argument I have a problem with.

Improve your reading comprehension. I didn't say you were an asshole. I said you were acting like one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, though I'm rapidly becoming disinclined to do so.I find it hardly appropriate of you to complain about ad hominem when you're the one who started using them. Next I imagine you'll complain to the admins: "Wahh, Crashfrog hit me back!"Come to think of it, where the hell are the admins on this? They usually catch boorish behavior before it goes this far.