Introduction to Information

Hi DNAunion:I've been following the discussion on this and the other thread with some interest. So far, I have not seen you make any statement that was controversial if taken at face value. However, I'm curious as to your underlying position in this debate - and in fact why you're arguing about it at all. There's one question that hasn't been answered in all this - although holmes (directly) and Peter (indirectly) asked it: When you, personally, refer to information in DNA, are you referring to a physical entity, similar to a particle or waveform that has independent existence? Or are you referring to an abstraction - a measurement tool or theoretical construct - as most of the quotes you've posted several times are explicitly using the term? If the former, then you have a lot of additional explanatory argument to produce. If the latter, then you've made no statement that anyone who is familiar with the subject should disagree with, and hence I don't really understand what the argument is about. Note: simply reiterating your quite uncontroversial statement that "information is contained in the sequence" etc does not address the question.Looking forward to your reply.

Actually, Joralex, DNAunion answered the question quite satisfactorily in message 125. With his response, I no longer have any quibbles with the way he is using the term. He agrees with the majority of those scientists using information in relation to biology, several of whom he quoted: the term represents an abstraction or analytical tool, not a physical entity. The concept allows science to manipulate and analyze genetic "information" in its own right, disassociated from context - i.e., a highly useful analogy.