CSI and Evolution

While we see CSI defined in a complete and useful way in the companiion topic I would like to separate the use of this concept.In particular, the bit I have read about CSI seems to talk about abiogenesis. What I would like to see some discussion of from the expersts in CSI (e.g., Joralex) is how the concept applies to evolution.Specifically I am interested in how it applies to mutations of all kinds.How does it apply to speciation?{Note from Adminnemooseus - Also see the "Complex Specified Information (CSI)" topic.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-27-2003]

I'd like to add a companion question to this:Why is DNA "information", but the structure of a given plastic which contains a long linking of multiple types of subunits not "information"?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Answer:- DNA isn't information.We are suffering from decades of mis-interpreted analogy.

Brilliant. DNA=DieoxyriboNucleic Acid. It's not information. The way in which its' base chemicals(Adenine,Guanine,Thymine,Cytosine) are connected in every gene determines what sort of traits a living thing will have; I suppose this has already been discussed somewhere(?) The analogy I was exposed to when I was a fundee creationist was the computer=DNA analogy. I didn't quite understand the argument behind the analogy at the time, and come to think of it, it's still confusing. Please enlighten me if anyone can on why CSI cannot be applied to DNA, & why it is a fallacious concept.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-27-2003]

One thing that should clue people in to how it is fallacious is that for DNA to have "information", so would polymers. No matter what type of argument they take:1) "DNA's properties are uniquely characterized by the information that it contains. It can contain a huge amount of different forms, providing a high degree of complexity." Same with your average polymer.2) "DNA can code for the production of other chemicals". It only does that in the right environment. In the right environment, so can polymers. In fact, in the right environment, essentially every chemical can "code" for the production of other chemicals - specific other chemicals, even.3) "DNA is a program". DNA isn't a program any more than a snowflake is a program. DNA is a chemical, and it reacts according to the laws of chemistry, just as does a freezing snowflake.The problem with trying to apply CSI to DNA is that they have to add in the concept of "intent" into it; intent only applies if you believe in a creator, so it's circular reasoning.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-27-2003]

Actually, i would agree that it would be possible to consider a polymer to contain "information". Wouldn't I simply figure out what bits would be necessary to specify the chemical pattern and consider that to be a measure of the Shannon information content of the polymer?I'd like some help with sorting out what is meant here. (though this really belongs in the CSI thread or a new one, not this one ).

But that's a problem for the DNA=CSI crowd. Polymers can assemble randomly quite easily. So, either you have to believe that something that contains information can assemble randomly, or that polymers (and for the same reason, DNA) don't contain information.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I see, well Joralex is the expert on the topic of CSI. I am waiting for his clarification of all this.(It is beginning to look like he may have gone to ground though. )

i'm very ignorant on this subject, so please don't jump at me if i make any ridiculous assumptions in my questions.in regards to points 1 and 2: It seems to me the difference between DNA and polymers (from what i remember from my intro to chem class) is that DNA can have a seemingly random arrangement of "monomers" (A, T, G and C), while polymers have a repeating pattern of monomers.Regardless of what actual "information" may or may not be contained in a given system, it follows that a system that has a definite repeating pattern can hold much less information than a system that does not have a repeating pattern.eg: information on a hard drive is not a repeating patter, but rather is seemingly random bits set to 1 or 0 to code for individual pieces of information and processes. You say in the right environment polymers can code for the production of other chemicals... i fail to see how a repeating pattern can code for anything... unless the important part was simply contained in one "monomer" of the repeating pattern.please set me straight. From the above reasoning it seems that DNA can be considered to contain information while polymers can not (repeating patterns can only contain as much information as one individual "link" in the chain... as opposed to DNA which it not repeating at all.)theop.s. I seem to remembers polymers are made up of one or two monomers that repeat through out the chain of molecules, and I assume all polymers are that to a greater or lesser extent (repetition of a molecule or series of molecules). Can polymers consist of various monomers in varying numbers of groupings?

quote:

---

The way in which its' base chemicals are connected in every gene determines what sort of traits a living thing will have

---

This is the bit that's wrong, and causes all the problems.It's mainly about the word 'determines'. Used loosely it's
reasonable enough, but not when used literally.The sequence of DNA does not determine the traits of the organism,
the traits of the organism arise due to the chemical systems
produced when DNA interacts with the right environment.Traits are emergent properties of a vastly complex chemical
system -- but there is no intent and nothing is determined.It's just chemistry -- much more complex than the stuff that
we do, but none-the-less just chemistry.

quote:

---

Actually, i would agree that it would be possible to consider a polymer to contain "information". Wouldn't I simply figure out what bits would be necessary to specify the chemical pattern and consider that to be a measure of the Shannon information content of the polymer?

---

No. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}

quote:

---

On the validity of Shannon-information calculations for molecular biological sequences.

​

Hariri A, Weber B, Olmsted J 3rd.

​

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Fullerton 92634.

​

The usefulness of information-theoretic measures of the Shannon-Weaver type, when applied to molecular biological systems such as DNA or protein sequences, has been critically evaluated. It is shown that entropy can be re-expressed in dimensionless terms, thereby making it commensurate with information. Further, we have identified processes in which entropy S and information H change in opposite directions. These processes of opposing signs for delta S and delta H demonstrate that while the Second Law of Thermodynamics mandates that entropy always increases, it places no such restrictions on changes in information. Additionally, we have developed equations permitting information calculations, incorporating conditional occurrence probabilities, on DNA and protein sequences. When the results of such calculations are compared for sequences of various general types, there are no informational content patterns. We conclude that information-theoretic calculations of the present level of sophistication do not provide any useful insights into molecular biological sequences.

---

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-28-2003]

Most commercial-use polymers attempt to have certain specific, tightly controlled, already tested properties, and so are created from linkages of specific identical or alternating subunits. However, there is no requirement, to the best of my knowledge, that the subunits need to be identical. Thus, as I stated before, you can have a randomly assembled polymer, so long as there's a random mix of subunits available for assembly - it's just not going to be one that you're going to mass-manufacture.Am I correct on this, people?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Thanks Rei, Adding 'intent' into the equation does appear to create(pun intended) problems for the creationists! On the face of it, I would guess that 'intent' is not a matter for Biologists but instead for Psychologists(or a lawer?) to iron out. If that makes sense, then how on earth would a psychologist go about proving that a DNA molecule was purposely made? Or is it a problem for Heredity Psychologists, and do they exist even? Do the protiens which make the chains of the molecule with the base chemicals 'know' what their doing? They don't have Brains to think with. And what is the mechanism that causes protiens to form DNA anyway?(I can't remember.)

Thanks Peter for setting me straight as I took only one biology and one chemistry class in High School and it was a very long time ago. Yea! I know it's just chemistry, just forgot why. PM[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-28-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-28-2003]

I don't know enough to say if your correct or not!!