Data, Information, and all that....

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:

---

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]

Ironically in between "Now you're just being ridiculous." and "Your word games are not convincing." you manage to advance a pure word game which is utterly ridiculous.

quote:

---

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.

---

While you MAY be correct that there is a very low probability the core proteins would form from purely randomly incorporating AAs, what does that have to do with cells, let alone the tens of trillions in your body, etc etc?Oooook kind of beat me to the punch, but you are aware it is unlikely a cell just formed overnight with no environment around it that made core protein production more than purely random? Until we can specifically model the environment where this production process began, or the formation of the cell, it is hard to say anything with probabilities.Where are you getting the data to create model which allows you to run statistics?I might add that we have eukaryotic cells, which are different from the first prokaryotic cells. Furthermore evidence is mounting (if not conclusive) that eukaryotic cells are symbionts of more than one type of prokaryotic cell. This may explain the vast array/complextity of protein productions and recognitions we see going on. Our cells are the result of two or more living systems merging into cohabitation.Again, this just goes to show that our models are not accurate enough to calculate probabilities. Before we understood the above fact we'd have to calculate all cell functions as having to come about at once (in the same cell).As it stands I haven't even mentioned the possible role of clays, or of pressure/temperature environments in assisting the formation of templates.There is more in heaven and earth and cells and evolution, than are dreamt of in your philosophy dear DNAunion.Unless you have some proof you know the exact conditions of cell formation, or rudimentary RNA formation, so that you can create a model that allows credible computations?It appears you have already miffed your model by not understanding that our cells are symbionts.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 12-19-2003]

No DNAU I am not misinterpreting what you said. Frankly I am unsure who you are replying to because it is not to what I said.I never said anything about God or ID or anything. I am saying that you cannot calculate probabilities regarding cellular processes (or creation of them) as we see them today. This goes at least double, if not more, for modern eukaryotic cellular processes.It is arguable that the probability of viable mutations within modern cellular processes can be calculated. Until all of such processes are fully understood I won't say that these arguments are very convincing but at least they are logically possible to make.But all of this is regards to the initial formation of DNA, or RNA. That DNA or RNA contains information has already been ended as an argument (at least with me). They do contain info within the context (parameters) of forming proteins.How they came to have info, or how they can change their information content, may be of interesting speculation... at least mathematically.BTW, since you keep telling me to grow up, perhaps you can explain how I should accomplish this. Is it by agreeing with everything you say? Or is it by avoiding the same level of sarcasm you lace all of your posts with?------------------
holmes

Wow, sorry I was wrong about you not recognizing/using symbiosis. I was unaware of your earlier post.That said, I do not see how your probability calculations include this nature of our cells, and how it may affect the alteration (accumulation) of information. In basic prokaryotic cells DNA is shared and shifts on it own who knows how many times. This combined, with the number of such cells (and their ever growing numbers as they are successful in an environment) makes the probabilities you quote, much less indicative of anything.

quote:

---

If there's one thing we don't need around here, it's rational, honest, and educated people. No, what we need is people like you.

---

Hey, I can admit when I am wrong, and that's the first step in getting things right. Perhaps you should check into it. Or at least some lithium.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Yes, you are.

---

No, I am not. You continue to build your strawman and state that I am the one building the strawman.I made a mistake in the other thread understanding what definition of information you were using. While I admit it was my error in not fully understanding what definition you were using, obviously other people are confused, so maybe it ain't all me.Either way, it got figured out.Now in this thread I did not see you take the variety of mechanisms which may account for information in these systems so I assumed you were not aware of them. That assumption was wrong and I apologized.HOWEVER, the idea that you can use "ballpark figures" and ask things like "How likely is it to form in a single shot by randomly stitching together amino acids?" shows the point I am actually driving at (attacking) is not a strawman. You just don't seem to get it.If I am making another mistake and all you are trying to say is there is information, and a lot of it, which makes replication possible: Okey doke.If I am right and you are insinuating that you are getting worthwhile estimates of information, then there is a problem. Single shot is not real, and ballpark figures are required because the data necessary to make a real model is missing.If I am wrong, I am not creating a strawman, I am simply mistaken on your position. And since you seem to have everyone else confused, maybe you should take into consideration that YOU are the one having a problem getting your message across.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Clearly the problem is not me...clearly, it is you

---

Yeah, nice proof that the communication problems are mine and not your own. The fact that you are yelling about two points I already agreed with just makes this that much easier. You're either looking to prolong an argument, or too dense to figure out there isn't one.Goodbye DNAunion.------------------
holmes

I said goodbye. I believe you are either insincere or incapable of proper communication. You appear to feel the same about me. Fair enough. Please do not reply to this post, or any other post I write on this website.------------------
holmes

Even if I asked pretty please with sugar on top?------------------
holmes