Data, Information, and all that....

And another I have not yet posted.

quote:

---

"In this chapter we consider the nucleic acids, the molecules that (1) contain the information prescribing amino acid sequence in proteins and (2) serve in the several cellular structures that choose, and then link into the correct order, the amino acids of a protein chain. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the storehouse, or cellular library, that contains all the information required to build cells and tissues of an organism. The exact duplication of this information in any species from generation to generation assures the genetic continuity of the species. The information is arranged in units identified by classical geneticists from Gregor Mendel through Thomas Hunt Morgan, and known now as genes, hereditary units controlling identifiable traits in organisms. In the process of transcription, the information stored in DNA is copied into ribonucleic acid (RNA) ..." (Harvey Lodish, Arnold Beck, S. Lawrence Zipursky, Paul Matsudaira, David Baltimore, and James Darnell, Molecular Cell Biology: Fourth Edition, W H Freeman & Co., 2000, p100)

---

quote:

---

From a purely energy standpoint you might be right...I don't think it matters as you are overlooking a key part of the equation.

​

How do cells maintain their high degree of order and complexity? This is a VERY SPECIFIC, YET HIGHLY IMPROBABLE state - one that is very much thermodynamically unfavorable.

---

Given any specific arrangement of cellular contents (including
the DNA) the result is not improbable ... it is a consequence
of the chemical interactions.If you are considering jumbling those contents, then you are
shifting to consideration of HOW those contents got the way
they are, rather than consideration of some 'information'
content.

quote:

---

Mere energy and chemistry alone are not sufficient to make one of our cells...it takes control too, which is where the information comes in.

---

I take this to mean that you consider the process to be one in
which the DNA sequence 'directs' the cell. That is, that the
DNA sequences are analogous to a computer program.This is not like the physics concept of information.The 'control' aspect comes from the set of chemicals and energetic
environment within the cell (and inputs from outside the cell).They react the way they do, because they are chemicals, and that's
what chemicals do, not because the DNA sequences 'tells' the cell
what to do any more than a catalysts 'tells' a set of chemicals
to react with one another.If that's not what you mean by 'control' of a cell, or of the
kind of information required, please elaborate.

Is there a glossary in that book that defines
'information', 'genetic information', or any such?Or a section in a chapter that does the same.If there isn't, then we cannot know that the term in not
being used in the informal, common understanding sense.If there is, it may illuminate more to show that, than to
show the section where the term is used.

No definition, just the continual use and explanation of what it is throughout the book, which is all I need to demonstrate my point that DNA contains information.But here's a definition of the term "genetic information" for you that I found very quickly using Google.

quote:

---

GENETIC INFORMATION
The information encoded (see encoding) in the genetic material with which all living organisms are endowed. The carrier of this information is a complex structure of dna. It represents an organism's biological inheritance and controls that organism's development, reproduction and self-repair. Within an organism, genetic information flows from dna to protein and other products, first, by the transcription of portions of the dna into so-called messenger rna and, second, by the assembly of individual amino acids into polypeptides, including proteins. Thus the growth of an organism is controlled. The absence of a mechanism that could reverse the direction of this flow from proteins to dna is the basis for the fact that the experiences an organism makes during its life time cannot be inherited by biological means (see culture). Changes in the intergenerational communication of genetic information result from mutations (see noise) and are the target of natural selection (see evolution). (Krippendorff) (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/GENETI_INFOR.html)

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-08-2004]

quote:

---

[From DNAUnion's quote] Changes in the intergenerational communication of genetic information result from mutations (see noise) and are the target of natural selection (see evolution).

---

So the information involved is purely natural, and the information can change due to natural mechanisms. This is a far cry from the type of information involved in human:human interaction, or even machine coding. So I would say that the information content of a genome is a result of natural mechanisms and is not meant to convey information to another sender, but only receive information from the environment through natural selection. Therefore, the information in the genome is derived from the environment.

quote:

---

So the information involved is purely natural, and the information can change due to natural mechanisms.

---

I hope you are not claiming to counter me there. Remember, my point in these threads was never about HOW the information got into DNA, just that it IS there.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-08-2004]

quote:

---

I hope you are not claiming to counter me there. Remember, my point in these threads was never about HOW the information got into DNA, just that it IS there.

---

I am trying to differentiate two types of information, spoken language and DNA. I will agree that there is information in DNA, but that it differs greatly from information used in language and in computer programming. In DNA, the information is transferred chemically and only communicates through natural selection. Human language is not physically based, instead language is based on abstract thought and is independent of the medium. With DNA, information is dependent on the medium, a sugar/phosphate backbone with attached nucleotides.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-10-2004]

quote:

---

No definition

---

Which is why I have previously stated that the continual reposting
of sections containing the word are not helpful in this
discussion.Even in the genetic information description that you provided
there is no indication that the term 'information' itself
is being used in anything other than a metaphorical sense.DNA sequences can be viewed as though they contained information,
is a very different statement.

quote:

---

"Having outlined the principles governing the stepwise assembly of polynucleotides, we now focus briefly on the large-scale arrangement of information in DNA and how this arrangement dictates the requirements for RNA manufacture so that information transfer goes smoothly. The simplest definition of a gene is a "unit of DNA that contains the information to specify synthesis of a single polypeptide chain". The number of genes in cells varies widely, with the simpler non-nucleated prokaryotic cells having far fewer genes than eukaryotic cells. The vast majority of genes carry information to build proteins ..." (Molecular Cell Biology: Fourth Edition, Harvey Lodish, Arnold Beck, S. Lawrence Zipursky, Paul Matsudaira, David Baltimore, & James Darnell, W H Freeman & Co., 2000, p114)

---

You seem highly hooked on the fact that people often
use the term 'information' in connection with
DNA sequences, and completely avoid the question of whether
that term is used to mean something very precise, or
informally as in common language.That is different you know.The latest quote is highly unhelpful.It says that a gene is a DNA sequence that contains information
and you are using that to say that DNA contains information.i.e. using someone's definition that doesn't include what they
mean by information in the first place.I'll lay out one of my objections to using 'information' in regard
to DNA in anything but a metaphorical sense.If DNA doesn't contain information, there is no question about
where that information came from (regardless of defintion).If DNA objectively contains information then one can aske
where did it come from and in what way can it be changed?The latter makes no sense wrt DNA, since DNA is governed by
the same physical principles that govern all of chemistry.Just because they are highly complex in the interaction sense
does not mean there is any information (in any specified, controlling, algorithmic sense).DNA processes do not match any IS models, so no IS/data processing
definitions of information are relevant.That leaves the physics definition (which I have already agreed
is OK) that simply says that everything contains 'physics' information.They are NOT the same concept, and shouldn't be confused.

quote:

---

Although DNA stores the information for protein synthesis and RNA carries out the instructions encoded in DNA, most biological activities are carried out by proteins. The accurate synthesis of proteins thus is critical to the proper functioning of cells and organisms. We saw in Chapter 3 that the linear order of amino acids in each protein determines its three-dimensional structure and activity. For this reason, assembly of amino acids in their correct order, as encoded in DNA, is the key to production of functional proteins.

​

Three kinds of RNA molecules perform different but cooperative functions in protein synthesis:

​

1. Messenger RNA (mRNA) carries the genetic information copied from DNA in the form of a series of thee-base code words, each of which specifies a particular amino acid. (Molecular Cell Biology: Fourth Edition, Harvey Lodish, Arnold Beck, S. Lawrence Zipursky, Paul Matsudaira, David Baltimore, and James Darnell, W H Freeman & Co., 2000, p116)

---

As near as I can tell, DNAunion is arguing that DNA contains information, while everyone else is arguing it does not. If my count of the protagonists is accurate, then the number on one side has just doubled.Shannon information isn't particularly restrictive. If a system can be envisioned as sending the symbols of a set across a communications channel, then information is being communicated. In the case of DNA this isn't particularly difficult, and in fact there are any number of ways that genetic systems can be envisioned in this way.In Message 192 Peter quoted from a technical paper: This is somewhat ambiguous, but I believe that the meaning of, "compared for sequences of various general types," is a search for patterns generally associated with artificial information, the kind we store on our computers and send across the Internet. That they found nothing of this nature does not lead to the conclusion that DNA doesn't contain information. It only means that the information in DNA does not exhibit the patterns typical in the artificial information we're familiar with. In other words, the symbols of DNA information do not correspond to any encoding system that their algorithms were capable of detecting, which is what is meant by, "present level of sophistication".On the other hand, it appears to me, as it has appeared to most others, that DNAunion's quotes of uses of the term "information" in a biological context do not refer to Shannon information, i.e., are not using the term in an information theoretic context. While the context of the article *is* technical, the topic isn't information theory or even related to information theory, and their use of the term "information" is casual and everyday.I have seen hints at the more familiar issues that discussions with Creationists about information take. Creationists usually argue that information can only be created by intelligence. This is, of course, untrue.--Percy [Delete duplicate title and misspelling. --Percy][This message has been edited by Percy, 03-12-2004]

quote:

---

On the other hand, it appears to me, as it has appeared to most others, that DNAunion's quotes of uses of the term "information" in a biological context do not refer to Shannon information, i.e., are not using the term in an information theoretic context. While the context of the article *is* technical, the topic isn't information theory or even related to information theory, and their use of the term "information" is casual and everyday.

---

Couldn't agree more. I have conceded that DNA can store information, but this info is different than that found in human communication and computer programming for instance. Information in DNA is not meant as an abstraction, but rather as a chemical reaction that is controlled by environmental selection pressures. The information in DNA can be read and understood by understanding the results of such pressures, that is the accretion of beneficial and neutral mutations as a result of natural selection.In common usage, information in these quotes is used as an analogy to computer code resulting in "commands" being carried out. However, it is only used to illustrate the chemical process and is not intended to confer attributes of intelligently derived communication or programming to DNA.

For the record, DNAunion has put it like this in the Behe's 'IC' Is Refuted thread:

quote:

---

At this site I’ve not committed to how information got into DNA because HOW has not been my point...just that there IS information in DNA.

​

But now I’ll go ahead and state my position: purely natural processes, such as random mutation and natural selection, can increase the information content of DNA. The information needed to produce extant organisms, encoded in DNA base sequences, was produced from natural manipulations of the DNA information needed to produce yesterday’s organisms, which arose in a similar fashion, and so, back through time until reaching a single common ancestor (if we are going to get technical, possibly a single community in the Woese sense). In other words, common descent of all extant life from a universal common ancestor by means of undirected evolution, with the new information entering the collective genome by means of undirected mutation and natural selection.

---

Am I the only one who sees a gaping hole in this? How magnanimous of him to state that he accepts that natural processes produced the additional information necessary to get us from the common ancestor(s) to today's organisms, but what about before that?This is the creationism that dares not speak its name. Despite his denials, it's clear that the 'information' he's talking about wouldn't be in DNA unless someone put it there. Why else would he care what definition of information we accept? Note he puts the word "random" in scare quotes, like there's any reason to think that point mutations are anything but random. And I wonder what sort of processes put the information into that proto-DNA, since 'purely natural' ones are supposed to be so inadequate once we get to the common ancestor.Again, if undirected mutation and selection is good enough to explain the amazing diversity of life that exists today, I think it could very well explain the origin of life itself. And if anyone has any better scientific explanation, they should provide us with it instead of trying to make us believe that we're being presumptuous by going with has worked so far.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mr H, I have not taken any notice of htis thread previously, but your analysis of DNAunion's post from another thread appears to be consistent with, and explaining of, DNAunion's recent messages here. I don't know if DNAunion is simply trying to be obscure but there doesn't appear to be any obvious point to DNAunion's repeated copying of quotes which include the word "information". DNAunion appears to copy the creationist habit of conflagrating the technical use of the word information with its everyday use, even in some of the quotes.Surely DNAunion is not proposing a last gasp "god of the gaps" argument that god created "information" in the protobiotic DNA molecules and then left them to develop through natural processes into Homo sapiens.