Data, Information, and all that....

Coin tossing:I don't know in advance. But it might, and if it does
I can keep that sequence, maybe invert a few bits at
random, or add a few, or copy a section, or
copy a section in backward, or ... and see what it does then.If I have a couple of billion years and a large
number of parallel tries I could even produce a better
version of MS Windows this way .... course quite a few
people could probably do that anyhow

The quote you keep pushing simply says 'Logically, there
must be some form of information ...'1) It gives no definition for 'information' so we do not
know what is being suggested as present. IS it the reduction
in uncertainty that you have suggested?2) It uses the word 'logically' to mean 'it's self evident',
and presents no logical argument at all.Simply re-stating this does not show the actual LOGIC
from which one can infer information within DNA sequences.

Let's try logic again.How is it that you are a human instead of a cactus? How is it that your childen will be human instead of squids? How is it that you have eyes? How is it that your eyes and skin have the particular color they do? How is it that you can digest proteins?Could it be because the genetic information involved is contained in your DNA? Yes. If you have some other logic that explains these phenomena, please tell us.On the flip side, how is it that you can't synthesize certain amino acids? How is it that you can't navigate using echo location as a bat or dolphin can? How is it that you can't remain underwater indefinitely as fish can?Could it be because the information needed to accomplish these things is missing from your DNA? Yes.The genetic information stored in DNA using base sequences controls phenotypic traits. It is that genetic information that makes you - and any children you have or will have - human and not an alligator.This reasoning is all the logic a rational and honest person needs. If you are demanding a formal logical proof, you're being too demanding.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-18-2003]

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?

This is actually a more general post to everyone (and made in the other thread on this topic started by DNAunion), but I figure tagging it on here is just as appropriate...Everyone is arguing past each other on this. At least this is what I gather from one of my latest posts with DNAunion (ed.. in the other thread) and reading a bunch of stuff from that link (ed.. DNA posted in the other thread).Kind of we are all right. All there is is chemistry and physics going on. Information is a property within a model of specific situations... so within a limited set of parameters there may be said to be a quantity called information.It is not that chemicals actually read or process the information, in the exact same way as machines or humans do (data moving to brain or central processor which makes a decision), but may be thought of as doing so within those parameters (as input hits a function of a chemical structure which results in output... giving us a range of potential choices or uncertainty/information).Thus DNAunion is correct that the information is in the system itself, just not the common term of information (it is a mathematical kind), and exists only within those parameters under study.If I am wrong DNAunion, please carefully explain where I am incorrect.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

You keep making this argument, where you equate the tendancy of the structure of DNA to remain the same with information content of DNA.

---

Let's make sure we're on the same page.Genetic information is not stored in the structure of DNA, but in the sequence of its bases. For example, if part of a gene had the sequence AACTAGCTAG that segment of DNA would have the same structure as if it had the sequence GAGAGTTCCG. In general, what base is at a given position does not materially affect the structure of DNA: that is, basically, the two antiparallel strands are the same distance apart and make the same fractional turn (twist) as long as complementary bases are involved. It is not the double helical structure of DNA that is used to make proteins, it is the sequence of its bases.Genetic information is stored in the base sequences, as coded instructions. A ribosome needs to "know" the order to stitch amino acids together in in order to end up with one of the proteins the cell needs. Where does the ribosome get this information? From the base sequences of DNA, ultimately. When a gene is transcribed, each DNA nucleotide triplet is converted into a complementary mRNA codon. For example, DNA's ACTGGT would be converted into mRNA's UGACCA. The mRNA then travels to the ribosome, where the ribosome is said to read it, analogous to the way a VCR reads a tape. The ribosome needs to know what amino acid to incorporate into position X: it is the mRNA codon, which is basically just a copy of a DNA triplet, that determines this. The corresponding tRNA - the one whose 3-nucleotide RNA anti-codon is complementary to the mRNA codon currently being "read" by the ribosome - brings the correct amino acid to the ribosome and it gets linked into the growing polypeptide.Proteins function is determined by their specific three dimensional shape: a different function requires a different size and shape. It is proteins whose structure contains information. For DNA, the information is contained in base sequences.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-18-2003]

Let me try to explain the logic a bit more. Here's the general rundown.I asked someone, "Why do you have eyes?".Eyes are organs. Organs are the way they are because of the tissues that make them up: a skeletal muscle is different from a brain or a bone because of the different tissues. Tissues are the way they are because of the cells that make them up: a neuron is much different than a muscle fiber. And cells are the way they are primarily because of the specific proteins they contain, or, how much of a certain protein they contain: skeletal muscle fibers contain tropopmyosin, myosin, and actin that interact to contract, whereas a neuron does not. So, in simple terms, different proteins make different types of cells, which therefore make different kinds of tissues, which therefore make different kinds of organs.So, simply put, the reason you have eyes is because the cells that make up your eyes make proteins that the other parts of your body don't. It's basically a complete cause-and-affect relationship, protein types->cell type->tissue type->organ type, where the arrows indicate "determines".Now, why do cells have the proteins they do? Well, proteins aren't form in cells by randomly throwing together amino acids - if they were, there'd be no life. Proteins are made of specific sequences of amino acids. Where does the information come from to order the amino acids as needed? From nucleotide sequences in mRNA. And where do the mRNA sequences come from? They are copies of DNA nucleotide sequences. So, with the right DNA sequences, cells can stitch amino acids together in the right order to make proteins specific to eyes.Therefore, you have eyes because the genetic information for eyes is stored in the base sequences of your DNA. It's basically a direct cause-and-affect chain leading from DNA to eyes: DNA->mRNA->proteins->cell type->tissue type->organ type.But that's it. DNA is as far back as the cellular information trail can be taken. The DNA in your cell is the way it is because it was given to you that way by your parents. Nothing in that cell of yours created the DNA sequences: they were inherited. And that is why your children too will have eyes: because the genetic information - stored as specific base sequences in DNA - you (and your partner) possess will be passed on in your gametes to the next generation, where the base sequences will again determine what proteins are made, which will determine what cell types are made, which will determine which tissues are made, which will determine which organs are made: eyes will be one of them.**************************************************
Came back the next morning to clear something up. Above I explained why you have eyes, and say, a cactus doesn’t. But a part of it could be misconstrued. I wasn’t clear why some of your cells become parts of eyes while other of your cells become fingers, intestines, etc. That is, what I said almost sounds as if eye cells have DNA that differs from that of your other cells. That is not correct. All of your somatic cells (body cells) contain the same DNA. The difference between the various types of cells in your body is in which genes are turned on and which are turned off (and in some cases, how much of a gene product is produced). Even the cells in your fingers have the base sequences of DNA to be eyes, it just that those particular genes are not expressed in those cells, while they are in eye cells. This occurs during a process called cell differentiation and involves gene regulation.So, you have eyes and a cactus does not because your DNA contains the base sequences (genes) needed to make eyes while a cactus's DNA does not. But, all of your somatic cells have the same DNA; some become eyes and others become kidneys because of differential gene expression.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-19-2003]

quote:

---

Peter: I am pointing it out sepifically as the reason that data and information are
not directly related.

​

The extrusion of information from data requires an interpretive act ... so information in this sense cannot be applied to DNA, or if it is, it must be recognized that it is the interpretation of the data that forms the informaiton, not the data itself.

---

Peter, this may be why we aren’t seeing eye-to-eye. You seem to be employing a very strong IT-type usage of the term information. Applying information technology to cellular processes can’t be done literally - it can only be done as an analogy. For example, using the index to find the page that defines the term information in an undergraduate text on systems analysis and design...

quote:

---

"Most experts agree on the fundamental difference between data and information.

​

Data are raw facts about the organization and its business transactions. Most data items have little meaning and use by themselves.

​

Information is data that has been refined and organized by processing and purposeful intelligence. The latter, purposeful intelligence, is crucial to the definition -- People provide the purpose and the intelligence that produces true information.

​

In other words, data are a by-product of doing business. Information is a resource created from the data to serve the management and decision-making needs of the business." (emphasis in original, Systems Analysis and Design Methods: Fifth Edition, Jeffrey L. Whitten, Lonnie D. Bentley, & Kevin C. Dittman, McGraw-Hill, 2001, p45)

---

I doubt that you are claiming there is purposeful intelligence in cells.In cells, data is information; there’s no distinction. It is in the world of information technology that they are different.

No, I'm asking for a logical progression that
ends in 'therefore DNA contains information'.What you have said (boiled down is):1) You are what you are and nothing else.
2) You are what you are because of the DNA sequences in your cells.Therefore DNA contains information.The leap from (1)+(2) is very broad, and covered by a very large
set of unstated assumptions.Your logic is still unstated.

quote:

---

A ribosome needs to "know" the order to stitch amino acids together in in order to end up with one of the proteins the cell needs

---

This is the problem with your reasoning.It's not that a cell 'needs' those proteins, its that those
are the proteins that the cell produces, and they happen
to cause a process we call life.It's not an informed process ... it's a purely chemical one.

I'll only reply here ... I think you are right, but I think DNAunion is using BOTH
definitions in his/her reasoning.Clumping them together as though they are the same
causes assumptive leaps that are not warranted.

quote:

---

No, I'm asking for a logical progression that ends in 'therefore DNA contains information'.

---

Which has been given to you. The problem here is your complete ignorance of biology. Until that is remedied, which is not my job, you will never get this.

quote:

---

What you have said (boiled down is):

​

1) You are what you are and nothing else.
2) You are what you are because of the DNA sequences in your cells.

​

Therefore DNA contains information.

---

Wrong. I explained that the DNA that is expressed in a cell determines the type of proteins in that cell, which determines cell type, which determines the tissue type, which determines the organ type, which is why you have eyes and a cactus does not. Same goes for other anatomical parts. All together, that's why you are a human and not a cactus, or a sponge - and why your children will also be human instead of an earthworm or rose: because of the genetic information contained in your DNA. So there's the logic chain from DNA base sequences to organism type.I have also explained how the base-sequence information in DNA gets transcribed into mRNA, and then how the mRNA base sequences are decoded by the ribosome to string together the amino acids of a protein in a particular order, which is why certain proteins are made by cells. Thereby explaining not just what genetic information does, but how it does it too.I've given you as complete of an explanation as reasonble: demanding more is being too demanding. Simply put, the problem is all on your side of the board.

quote:

---

Your logic is still unstated.

---

No, my logic has been explained in as much detail as is required - well, at least for reader who is rational, honest, and educated.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-19-2003]

quote:

---

A ribosome needs to "know" the order to stitch amino acids together in in order to end up with one of the proteins the cell needs.

---

quote:

---

This is the problem with your reasoning.

​

It's not that a cell 'needs' those proteins, its that those
are the proteins that the cell produces, and they happen
to cause a process we call life.

---

Now you're just being ridiculous.Cells do NEED certain proteins. There are certain core functions that all cells must carry out, such as metabolism, which require specific proteins to accomplish. The proteins that carry out these underlying, core ("housekeeping") processes are required for life and thus are NEEDED by cells. No such proteins, no living cells. They are NEEDED by cells for there to even be cells.Futhermore, the probability that these core proteins would form from randomly incorporating amino acids is virtually zilch, even for one cell, let alone the tens of trillions in your body, or the tens of trillions in the other 6 billion humans here on Earth. Random doesn't cut it. It is the INFORMATION contained in base sequences that determines the order in which amino acids are incorporated into growing polypeptides. It is that INFORMATION that specifies how to construct those particular proteins.Your word games are not convincing.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-19-2003]

Hello DNAunion,As someone is fairly up with molecular biology, but not overly versed in the 'information' argument of ID, can I make an observation?You are using the fact that some DNA in cells today holds a template for proteins and that proteins are required for processes of replication, transcription and translation as evidence that somehow some kind of higher intelligence put meaning into the DNA sequence. Is that the case?If so then you are ignoring (or just plain dismissing) the common view that protolife existed without proteins and there was some sort of DNA/RNA (or possibly just RNA) world of happily self-replicating molecules. In this kind of scenario you wouldn't need to have information - the RNA would be as close to random as you can get. Once you got a piece of RNA that did something useful like help replication or bind an amino acid then you would get selection occurring - but a designer would not be absolutely required would he/she/it?It does seem interesting that a lot of the elements of translation (ie the step required before entering the 'protein-world') are RNA based like the ribosome and tRNA, don't you think?

quote:

---

I think you are right, but I think DNAunion is using BOTH definitions in his/her reasoning.

---

That's what I thought, which is why I referred to his/her language usage being liable to subtle equivocations and misunderstandings... to which (s)he told me to grow up.The final post DNAunion made to me appeared to be saying that when (s)he is using terminology that appears to cross the line it is either because everyone should understand (s)he is not using it incorrectly, or that (s)he is simply insulting the reader for making such a mistake. Either way I don't think it's very useful form.So at this point I am fine with dropping the argument and simply waiting until the line is properly/obviously crossed to say something. I'd rather hear what DNAunion wants to say once we're all onboard with the same definition.(edited in... oh I just saw DNAunion's post after yours, I see what (s)he is wanting to say, and now there's a whole bunch more problems).------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 12-19-2003]