Evolution of complexity/information

quote:

---

Many start with the DNA .... unfortunately it is not the
DNA that makes the organism so this is inapproriate. It is
the collection of proteins made from the DNA that makes
the organisms so information and complexity have to be considered
at least at this level.

---

Peter,In some sense, you are correct, but try making even half the proteins used in your body (let alone at the proper time or place) WITHOUT the aid of DNA. DNA has, thus far, been very useful for that. There is also, if I'm not too terribly mistaken, information (data) contained in the DNA that is used to affect things other than direct protein manufacturing (i.e., it is not just a template). For instance, there are sequences that mean "start" or "stop" or that determine WHICH protein to make at a particular time or under a particular circumstance. Even these decisions and commands might be carried out in the template-fashion (tho, I don't know that they are), but considerably more is done with the template than being a pattern by which proteins are produced.Unfortunately, my knowledge of DNA is horribly limited, but that DNA is information seems barely debateable to me, as it is ordered (sequential). Were it un-ordered, then it would not be information, but, in that case, we also would not exist.

Peter, Well, I may have missed something of your intended point, too, as I certainly am guilty of not reading all 200+ posts . On the contrary, DNA is the main source (if not, the only source) of information in an organism, with the exception of food taken in (i.e., other organisms with their own information). I disagree. It would be like looking at software code or operating system code. Consider what happens at conception, after an egg and sperm converge. There is a tremendous process that begins to create the new organism; this process has no other source for direction except the instructions in the DNA. Remove the DNA. Would the new organism form at all, much less properly? Remove the DNA and you have removed the master instructions (information). There is still information in the system ~ i.e., proteins and such (thanks to the DNA before it was removed. But this information will no longer have any directing information.On the other hand, if you remove the necessary operating environment (the cell) from around the DNA, the DNA can do nothing. Take the motherboard out of your computer. That's sort of like removing an important non-DNA cell component. Or leave the motherboard in but delete the windows operating system (like removing the DNA). Either way, the computer suddenly becomes useless. A "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome, eh? I suppose you are right, but the visible features (in an organism, especially) are due to those nearly invisible things "lower in the hierarchy." Are you considering the protein interactions to be above or below the DNA level? I guess you consider them to be above as DNA is responsible for the formation of the proteins. But if there is information in the proteins, then there is information in that which produced the protein (decidedly more, actually, as there are instructions besides the mere template-copying to make the proteins ~ such as "start" and "stop" sequences).I'm not sure which way I see the hierarchy thing, or even that it is totally hierarchial. The DNA is both blueprint and master builder. So, is the final house (a product of the blueprint) higher or lower than the blueprint and master builder? This demonstrates that some parts of the DNA code are more critical than others. The very same could be said of software code. There are 0s and 1s in segments of the code in Microsoft's Word program that would have very little noticeable effect if removed. However, I imagine that if 0s or 1s in a certain crucial segment of that code are removed or switched, the software will not even open, much less operate. The word "SEQUENCE" is vitally important. Ultimately, computer code gets translated into machine language, which uses only two elements (0s, and 1s) ~ or, at least, it is my understanding that they are. If a string of 0s and 1s are random, there is no information, and the computer will be confused and do nothing useful. However, if the 0s and 1s are arranged in a certain order (i.e., sequenced), the computer will be able to do all sorts of useful things, such as word processing.Sequenced computer code (software) sells for a price and is designed by software engineers. Unsequenced computer code, were it about, would not command a very great price.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 10:04 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 10:07 AM

Well, admittedly, this is from another thread...I hope it fits in here.Contracyle,In response to my assertion that the existence of matter in general and DNA in particular are evidence of a Creator...You say... Computer code requires "intervention" in three significant ways:

the production of an environment in which the code is meaningful

the creation of the code itself

the arranging of the code to produce desired results

​

The fact that computer codes, once carefully arranged and placed in the proper environment (i.e., software loaded into a computer with an operating system in place), can operate without intervention (and, really, even this is not true, as some intervention is required to energize and maintain the computer) has nothing to do with the ORIGINATION of the code or the ORIGINATION of the operating environment. To me, this seems rather obvious, as it is well established that humans created the codes, created the operating environments, and created the code arrangements (code arrangements, btw, are commonly known as "software").

​

I cannot imagine that computer code arranged accidentally (were that actually possible) could produce any useful results.

​

DNA works regardless of intervention.

​

Sure, now that the operating environment (earth in the solar system), the operating systems (cells), and code arrangements (various DNA sequences for various lifeforms) are in place. There are various machines that can run almost without supervision once built. Leave your car on idle, for instance.

​

There is no need to postulate a creator for the origin of the code, because the code would execute just as well whether deliberately designed or accidentally assembled.

​

A matter of debate, of course. I have trouble imagining how the not-so-well understood genetic code and the related cell machinery came about without a creator.

​

For purposes of argumentation, and with the knowledge now available to me, I shall say that, within the strict limits of what can be scientifically known, the origin of DNA shall ever elude science. However, we certainly have no examples of "accidentally assembled" codes ~ computer or otherwise that do anything useful. (Currently, I am not aware of ANY accidentally assembled computer codes, useful or not.)

​

Regardless, the genetic code of even the simplest creatures is far too complex to have been arranged (sequenced) "accidentally." Could the code behind Windows XP have been arranged accidentally? And, yet the genetic code of an ameoba leaves Microsoft's XP code in the dust.

​

...the code would execute just as well whether deliberately designed or accidentally assembled. This is support for evolution, not creation.

​

Actually, by saying, "the code would execute just as well whether deliberately designed or accidentally assembled," you have implied that the genetic code could be appropriately used to support EITHER idea, not one instead of the other. But I'm sure you did not intend to do this, and I certainly consider the genetic code itself to logically support creationism over accidentalism.

Ramoss, The first assertion is quite correct. Computer code is not a self-replicating molecule. But, I ask, is DNA a self-replicating molecule? Or does it require highly specialized structures found only in the cell to carry out its replication?Now, as far as the validity of my analogy is concerned, one must remember that an analogy is a comparison that shows similiarities between two different things. There is simply a limit to how far any analogy can go by definition. If the analogy is a perfect match, then two different things are not being compared; rather, the very same thing is being compared to itself and that serves no purpose.However, it is fine to critically examine an analogy as you have done because many analogies ARE fallacious. I may have been unclear in some way previously; so, I am happy for an opportunity to clarify my analogy. Based on the concepts that I was comparing, I think you'll find the analogy quite satisfactory. Here are the two major concepts I was attempting to draw comparison between computer code and genetic code:

• Both DNA and computer code require highly specialized environments in order to be meaningful and useable. If I swallow a Windows XP CD, it will have effects but none that Microsoft intended because the code is not useable in my digestive system (a fine code in the wrong environment). Likewise, if I place a DNA strand into a cup of distilled water, it will not carry out any of its normal functions (a fine code in the wrong environment). Put these codes in their proper environments (Windows XP CD in the CD-Rom of your computer; DNA in the appropriate cell) and the cool stuff can happen.
  ​
• Both DNA and computer code have sequenced components, and it is the sequence that makes the major difference in results. Different genetic code sequences make different organisms. Different computer code sequences make different "softwares."

I happen to believe that the tremendous and precise sequencing involved in the various genomes (the various and unique genetic codes for the variousis and unique organisms found throughout Earth) indicative of a creative intelligence, and this is the crux of the analogy. Computer codes have a tremendous amount of sequencing...genetic codes have all the more sequencing and produce results (living organisms) that far outweigh any result of a computer code (a spreadsheet, for instance).I quite agree. Computer code is hardly sufficient (in terms of wonderfulness), but I have little else in my experience to compare genetic code to for these particular aspects.As a puzzle, I ask this:
Since the genetic code contains the information to make the cell, and since the cell cannot form without the genetic code, how did they come to be as a system that works in such a coordinated fashion?(The fact that there is mitochondrial RNA (or DNA?) only makes the question that much more difficult as it is yet another very complicated piece of machinery that is coordinated extremely well during cell division).Another question:
If DNA is nothing more than templates for protein shapes (which is tremendous in and of itself), what would a fertilized egg do if all the DNA were extracted upon the completion of the fertilization event?Finally: Well, here you are simply assuming that natural selection is a fact. There are also self-checks built into the DNA replication action that are tremendous. At the organism level, errors in DNA replication are usually corrected via the immune system (i.e., the malformed cell is destroyed). Considering the number of copies made every moment, the DNA/cell system is doing a fabulous job.Edited to add:
You also appear to simply be assuming that the genetic code was not devised and implemented. I contend that it was devised and implemented and that once implemented has been able, thus far, to carry out the replication of life forms on this planet. I really don't see how it could have gotten started otherwise. I see the existence of the genetic code as one piece of evidence that life was initially created as opposed to having come about through purely physical processes and chance.Consider the coelacanth. It's a fish that is a "living fossil." It was thought to have come into existence 400 million years ago and thought to have gone extinct about 65 million years ago. Then in 1938 a live one was caught. Now there's some stable DNA if I ever saw any . You can read more about the Coelacanth here (to my knowledge this is not a Creationists' site):
http://www.dinofish.comI, of course, believe in a young Earth, but I think this is a fascinating puzzle for people who believe the Coelacanth has existed for 400 million years...how can DNA be THAT stable if its changing so much?Edited to add:
I tend to be a bit long-winded...sorry . Also, I find this subject most interesting and appreciate everybody's responses to my queries/assertions and such. (Even though, usually I disagree quite a bit .)This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 03:45 PMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 04:31 PM

Hi Brad,Whew! Gotta read that a few times to get even a bit of it down, but I certainly enjoy the interesting information that would come from such experience.Not sure exactly what you are saying in regards to whether the complexity of info in living organisms supports evolution or creation, though. In case it isn't clear, I think it supports creation.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 04:15 PM

Hi AdminNosy,Thanks for the link to the Coelacanth discussion. I shall have to peruse that (sometime rather soon, hopefully). I have bookmarked it for future reading.I think I am dabbling a bit in the Dating Forum. Though, it might be another forum and I just THOUGHT it was the Dating Forum (with me, such confusion is VERY possible ~ something about Silt and Dating and depressions in the ocean floor by major rivers and such, I believe.At any rate, the Dates and Dating forum, if I haven't been there yet, will be of great interest to me. So, thanks for the invitation.

NosyNed,I couldn't agree more. Very well said.

Contracycle,An interesting post. I agree and disagree...Neat how computer code can physically affect the environment (RAM, I presume, I'm computer literate in a limited way). Thanks for pointing that out.Also, thanks for pointing out that computer code has a physical element. Although, I think it is abstract as far as the programmers are concerned, which may have been happy_atheist's point. However, I disagree with happy_atheist (certainly nothing personal happy ~ books could be written on what I don't understand about computers ) on this point: I think computer code is not independent of the computer. It can certainly be formulated outside the computer, but it can work ONLY in the computer. But, I may have misunderstood happy on this point.IMO, this stuff about self-replicating computers sounds a bit daydreamish. I'll stop short of saying it won't happen or that it's impossible...I don't consider it impossible, just unlikely. (But that is just an opinion).Now this quoted source of yours... ...just seems to support ID all the more, to me. Just a thought there.

The genome is the entire set of DNA sequences, right? I thought, incorrectly perhaps, that phenotype is a result of genotype; or put another way, that phenotype depends directly upon genotype (though I understand that not all parts of the genotype may be expressed in the phenotype)...right? What sort of information flows from the environment to the genome? How does it flow? What is "differential reproduction" (sorry, I've never heard of that before) and what part of "differential reproduction" does natural selection affect? I wonder if you might be confusing complexity of structure with complexity of information. If the expression of a blueprint contains complex information, how can the blueprint contain less complex information ~ if that is what you're saying? But in all cases, the blueprint is structurally simpler than its expression. To me, it would seem the other way around ~ that is, that the expression of the blueprint is actually simpler than the blueprint itself as far as complexity of information is concerned.Consider the blueprint for a house. It is two-dimensional and small, a mere piece of paper. In this way, sure, the blueprint is simpler than the house that results from the blueprint. However, all the complexity of information and intelligence was in formulating and interpreting the blueprint. And the blueprint also contains written information that is expressed (but not written) in the house. Ultimately, the house has NO intelligence (though it does contain information). However the blueprint and the house are a result of intelligence at work. In the case of DNA, the blueprint directs the interpretion of itself, so it is all the more amazing. And the expressions of DNA contain varying degrees of intelligence...wow! Even the humble paramecium I saw under a microscope once seemed to be making some decisions (which way to go, what to eat) and without a brain of any sort. Perhaps some of my family and friends think I operate much like this paramecium .I may be wrong, but it would seem that any particular expression of my genetic code (my brain, for instance) will represent only a part of that code and, thus, be less complex than the code itself. (Of course, some might think MY brain is pretty simple, so that might be a bad example ).To see whether the information in DNA is less complex than the organism itself, we could just remove ALL the DNA from the organism at any point in time (from conception onwards) and see how the organism fares without it. If the DNA is not conducting any "directing" type functions (like which and how many proteins to make and when to make them or when to start mitosis etc.), then the organism might do fine, if the more complex information is in the products of the DNA (i.e., proteins) or in the environment.Are you guys saying DNA does not contain complex information even though the organism does? I am probably misunderstanding something.Here are some DNA questions I think are important:Is genetic code meaningful anywhere outside the cell environment?Does the cell environment exist because of DNA?Does DNA need cell structures in order to replicate?
Does the DNA code for any of the cell structures?Is the replication process simple?Why does DNA replicate at all, is there a "replicate now" sequence?Are proteins considered simple?What do proteins do?Is the process by which DNA makes proteins simple?Is making proteins a simple chemical reaction similar to mixing two chemicals in a jar and a third product is automatically made (for example, an acid and a base making a salt)?Could the cell make the proteins without the DNA?Well, for what it's worth...just some thoughts.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-07-2004 02:45 PMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-07-2004 02:48 PM