Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

Same point as fighting for F = ma if some people were to erroneously state, and continue to defend, F > ma.

---

What would it matter if F = ma were never applied to any
other concepts?

quote:

---

Out of the "bajillion" possible amino acid sequences, how do our cells make just the specific proteins that they need, trillions of times over? By chance? No. DNA base sequences store the information ribosomes need to make those protein. That's the point I was making, nothing about HOW that information got there, just that it IS there.

---

No-one is sayng that the proteins in a cell come about by any
other means than through the chemical processes undergone
by the DNA present. Lack of information does NOT equate to
randomness.The definition you imply above for information is not the one
that you purport to support for biological purposes. It is
an algorithmic/computery definition which you yourself have called
inapproriate.

quote:

---

Same point as fighting for F = ma if some people were to erroneously state, and continue to defend, F > ma.

---

quote:

---

What would it matter if F = ma were never applied to any
other concepts?

---

Blatantly false scientific statements should be corrected. You can't grasp that simple concept????[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-07-2004]

quote:

---

Out of the "bajillion" possible amino acid sequences, how do our cells make just the specific proteins that they need, trillions of times over? By chance? No. DNA base sequences store the information ribosomes need to make those protein. That's the point I was making, nothing about HOW that information got there, just that it IS there.

---

quote:

---

[The definition you imply above for information] is an algorithmic/computery definition which you yourself have called inapproriate.

---

Completely false. Where do you see a requirement of CONSCIOUSNESS in my above statements? Not there. But CONSCIOUSNESS is KEY in your definition, which is the definition I have pointed out is inappropriate.

quote:

---

The definition you imply above for information is not the one
that you purport to support for biological purposes.

---

Sure it is.But you are confused in a second way. I didn't say that there is just one exact definition of information that is appropriate for discussing DNA. I have said:(1) The definitions I use are appropriate, and are "different sides of the same coin" (reduction in uncertainty, in one form or another)(2) The definition you explicitly stated and have been using, which requires a conscious agent for there to be information, is inappropriate.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-07-2004]

It only has any relevance if that false statement is
then used for something. If it is not used for any other
purpose why waste time and energy to correct some-one.Besides I thought all of the Newtonian stuff was incorrect
(or incomplete) anyhow.

Ok, so it's just the 'consciousness' part that you exclude.Algorithmic concepts of information and uncertainty reduction
view are not the same.For the algorithmic view to hold one has to show that there
is a mechanism for translating the raw data into something
else.Not transcribing, you understand, but translating.DNA does not provide a set of functions, or instructions that
cause proteins to be manufactured. It is just copied,
chemically.

quote:

---

It only has any relevance if that false statement is
then used for something. If it is not used for any other
purpose why waste time and energy to correct some-one.

---

You don't think scientific facts are worth standing up for? You don't think that correcting errors in scientific statements is worthwhile in its own right?And are you claiming that "DNA does not contain information" was irrelevant to the discussion?

quote:

---

Besides I thought all of the Newtonian stuff was incorrect
(or incomplete) anyhow.

---

No, not when the topic is classical physics, which I explicitly stated.Furthermore, "Newtonian stuff" is all scientists needed to get man on the moon and send unmanned spacecraft out to Mars, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, etc. In the everday world - our scale and larger, operating at normal speeds - "Newtonian stuff" works just fine ("good enough for government work", so to speak). Generally, it's only when extremes come into play - getting down somewhere around the subatomic scale, or getting up to speeds that are a good fraction of c - that "Newtonian stuff" breaks down.PS: Gotta get to work...no time now to respond to your other post.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-08-2004]

Not sure but I think you're wrong about this. General relativity was required to correct the model of Mercury's orbit to match observation - Newtonian mechanics was insufficient. So in that sense, you need relativity to get a probe to Mercury because without relativity Mercury isn't where you think it is. Also relativity is necessary to make GPS work right, I understand.

quote:

---

Furthermore, "Newtonian stuff" is all scientists needed to get man on the moon and send unmanned spacecraft out to Mars, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, etc.

---

quote:

---

Not sure but I think you're wrong about this. General relativity was required to correct the model of Mercury's orbit to match observation - Newtonian mechanics was insufficient. So in that sense, you need relativity to get a probe to Mercury because without relativity Mercury isn't where you think it is.

---

You don't need general relativity to send a probe to Mercury. One reason is that the orbital precession is negligible.

quote:

---

For Mercury, which has an orbital speed of 48 kilometers per second and an orbital period of 88 days, the precession equals 43 seconds of arc per century. This amounts to a complete revolution once very 3 million years. (Cosmology: The Science of the Universe: 2nd Edition, Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p234)

---

For a rough idea based on the last sentence in the quote...if our blind calculations involved predicting one year ahead we'd be off by only about 1/3,000,000 of an orbit for Mercury. Since Mercury's orbital period is 88 days, the planet would be about 0.000029333 days, or about 2.5 seconds, further or behind in its orbit than we blindly calculated. With an orbital speed of 48 kilometers per second, that's about 72 miles off. Since Mercury has a diameter of roughly 3,000 miles, we'd still be hitting the bullseye, even blindfolded.Second, I believe Mercury's orbital precession was known about before general relativity (i.e., GR was tested by comparing its calculations to the already known slight discrepancy from Newtonian equations). If I am correct, Newtonian mechanics would just need a slight adjustment - based on observational evidence gathered without reference to general relativity - to get it dead on.

quote:

---

Also relativity is necessary to make GPS work right, I understand.

---

Yes, without taking into account the relativistic effects of the differences in relative speed and gravitational forces (us here on the Earth's surface vs. a satellite in orbit), then slight discrepancies would continue to accumulate until the calculations were way off. I was generalizing with my statements (as is evident from my statement ("good enough for government work", so to speak)).[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-08-2004]

quote:

---

Ok, so it's just the 'consciousness' part that you exclude.

---

No, it's the 'consciousness' part that excludes your definition from being appropriate. That says nothing about whether the rest of your definition is appropriate or not.

quote:

---

Algorithmic concepts of information and uncertainty reduction
view are not the same.

---

You have not shown that. First of all, you haven't even defined your "algorithmic concept of information". Seeing as how you have problems with using appropriate definitions, we need to know exactly what you mean first before we judge the merit of your statement.

quote:

---

For the algorithmic view to hold one has to show that there
is a mechanism for translating the raw data into something
else.

​

Not transcribing, you understand, but translating.

---

And a ribosome does TRANSLATE base sequences into polypeptides.

quote:

---

DNA does not provide a set of functions, or instructions that
cause proteins to be manufactured.

---

DNA contains coded instructions for assembling functional proteins: the coded instructions stored in DNA ultimately direct the process of translation.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-08-2004]

quote:

---

And a ribosome does TRANSLATE base sequences into polypeptides.

---

Not to get into a bigger debate about the definition of "translate" but I see the process of going from mRNA to protein as a transcription, not translation. I look at translation as a decision making process that requires foresight and understanding of the message as a whole while transcription is a tit-for-tat non-decision making process. tRNA's bind to DNA code triplets as guided by the ribosomes and protein elongation then commences. The ribosome does not look at the rest of the mRNA and decide if this is the correct amino acid to use or not, it is a straight transfer, or transcription. On top of this, no decision is made by the ribosome, tRNA, mRNA, or the transcribed DNA, that is everything that happens from one step to the next is guided by which reaction is the most energetically favorable as proscribed by the enzymes involved. I think this ties well with Peter's argument of each base not predicting the next and why "protein translation" is somewhat colloquial where "protein transcription" is closer to accurate.

quote:

---

And a ribosome does TRANSLATE base sequences into polypeptides.

---

quote:

---

Not to get into a bigger debate about the definition of "translate" but I see the process of going from mRNA to protein as a transcription, not translation.

---

The information encoded in one "language" (nucleotides) is operated on by a function to produce specific information in a different "language" (amino acids). That's translation.

quote:

---

I look at translation as a decision making process that requires foresight and understanding of the message as a whole...

---

Which is an inappropriate definition for this discussion.Look up translate in the dictionary and see if you don't find at least one definition that fits biological translation (I did).Let me show you how silly you people with your inappropriate defintions are being.1) I could just as "correctly" say that DNA is not found in cells.2) I could just as "correctly" say that DNA is never found in the nucleus.3) I could just as "correctly" say that DNA requires the existince of a computer network.4) I could just as "correctly" say that DNA is not needed for life.5) I could just as "correctly" say that mice don't contain any DNA.These are all "correct" but they use inappropriate definitions, and so have no merit as far as our discussions are concerned.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-09-2004]

I'll reply to this, but tak post 161 into account also
(rather than notch up two separate posts where one will
do).

quote:

---

You have not shown that. First of all, you haven't even defined your "algorithmic concept of information".

---

It's not MY algorithmic concept ... you are the one who brought
it up when you keep mentioning things like 'coding for functions'.I think of an algorithm as a set of instructions, and to
be useful the algorithm should convert some inputs
deterministically into outputs.I can see where this view can be used as an ANALOGY in
explaining what goes on in a cell, but not as a genuine
model of the cell's behaviour.Translation and transcription are different.The amino acid that CAN attach is directly determined by the
base sequence. There is no instruction, no decision making,
nothing other than chemical reactions going on.Your statements (with the exception of the need a network
and needed for life ones) are all false unless you REDEFINE
the words to mean something completely different.DNA does NOT contain coded instructions for anything.You DO know how a cell works (as far as current knowledge goes)
don't you?Does Carbon contain a set of coded instructions for making
ethanol?

quote:

---

You don't think scientific facts are worth standing up for? You don't think that correcting errors in scientific statements is worthwhile in its own right?

---

No. Only if they support some other agenda that is, itself,
objectionable (to me) OR if the particular scientific principle
(I am suprised that such a learned scientist as yourself would use
the term 'fact') is a building block for further research or
practical applications.

quote:

---

No, not when the topic is classical physics, which I explicitly stated.

---

Do you know what 'explicitly stated' means?And what has that to do with the correctness of what you
stated?I was mainly pointing out that, after being used and supported
for a couple hundred years, questioning minds, rather than
blindly accept the 'college text books' looked deeper
and thought harder and realised that even Newton could be
wrong.

quote:

---

Your statements (with the exception of the need a network
and needed for life ones) are all false unless you REDEFINE
the words to mean something completely different.

---

Wrong. None of them is false, and they all use legitimate definitions of the terms involved. The problem is that the definitions that are needed to make them true are INAPPROPRIATE for a discussion of biology.Same goes with your original definition of information. It's true that DNA doesn't contain information IF ONE USES YOUR INAPPROPRIATE DEFINITION.Same goes for someone saying that translation doesn't occur in cells because translation must involve decision making, foresight, and understanding.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-09-2004]

quote:

---

You don't think scientific facts are worth standing up for? You don't think that correcting errors in scientific statements is worthwhile in its own right?

---

quote:

---

No.

---

I'd prefer to live in a world where people weren't ignorant of basic, simple scientific facts: but if you prefer the opposite...to each his own.

quote:

---

(I am suprised that such a learned scientist as yourself would use the term 'fact')

---

Why? You think there's no such thing as a scientific fact? What world do you live in?[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-09-2004]