Data, Information, and all that....

No, you've shown that some biologists consider DNA to contain something that could be described as information. Since arguments from authority don't hold you've fallen far short of proving there's information in DNA.Look, I don't waste time with arguments from authority, or the people who promulgate them. If you can't tell me what the information is then it's not worth talking to you.Which of these sequences has the most information:AGTCAAGTAGAGAAA or GTCAGGTGTGCGAGA?

DNAunion:

​

I haven't much time these days so I've been mostly just reading. Anyhow, I had to vent a bit by saying that I find utterly AMAZING how some people will argue the obvious because to not do so would weaken their case (and they know this).

​

That point is illustrated here with you having to explain the transparently clear fact that there is a huge amount of information in the genome. Heck, the experts in the field don't dispute this - their fight is over how it got there. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick has suggested that 'aliens did it'. Die-hard materialistic Naturalists say that 'random mutations and natural selection' did it. However, to argue the point of there being information is ... well ... they might as well be arguing the point that there's really not this thing called 'gravity'. Absolutely mind-boggling!

​

Of course I've seen this attitude many times before in different arenas. For instance, one way to avoid discussing the person of Jesus Christ is to simply argue - repeatedly and blindly - that such a person never existed. Yet to do this requires ignoring more evidence than there is that Caeser ever crossed the Rubicon but, hey, that's still easier than the alternative, right? Similarly, parroting the "non-existence of information" is a heck-of-a-lot easier than trying to explain where it came from. But that's a long story so without further ado I say, hasta la vista, baby!

​

Joralex

Oh, good,you're back!Now you can define "information" as it applies to the genome, which is what I think this thread needs most but neither side seems to be doing.Then you can pick up and define complexity and specified as I asked why back when in the CSI thread. You kind of never got time for that.

quote:

---

Since arguments from authority don't hold you've fallen far short of proving there's information in DNA.

---

I'd debate you more CrashFrog, but I don't think you have a brain. And you can't convince me that you do.Sure, you could post a ton of quotes from anatomy and physiology texts that state that humans have brains, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, AND WE SIMPLY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THOSE.Well, you could argue that you can think and reason, and therefore you must have a brain. But all that really shows is that you can think and reason, not that you have a brain. Of course, you could post a ton of material that shows scientists stating that only the brain can bestow upon humans that ability to think and reason, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, AND WE SIMPLY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THOSE.So, to convince us you have a brain, CrashFrog, you need to shave your head, crack open your skull, pull back the skin and bone and expose your skulls inside's, taking a picture of what you find and placing it here for us to examine.________________________________I also don't think you have any DNA, and you can't convince me otherwise. Sure, you can post tons of quotes from biologists that state that all humans have DNA, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, AND WE SIMPLY WILL NOT ACCEPT THOSE.I guess you could obtain some cells by taking a buccal smear and then argue that since you have functioning cells, they must contain DNA: even backing it up with logic and tons of quotes from biology texts. BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, AND WE SIMPLY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THOSE.I guess you could photograph the cells undergoing mitosis and then provide a ton of biology quotes that state that the chromosomes you see condensing, lining up, and pulling apart contain DNA. BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, AND WE SIMPLY WON'T ACCEPT THOSE.In fact, it might be IMPOSSIBLE for you to convince me that you have DNA in your cells without your having to use an argument from authority.Yeah, I like your logic CrashFrog. Using it, you can't argue that you have a brain nor that your cells contain DNA.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-15-2003]

quote:

---

Look, I don't waste time with arguments from authority, or the people who promulgate them.

---

You obviously also don't waste time bothering with things like logic.

quote:

---

If you can't tell me what the information is then it's not worth talking to you.

---

If YOU don't know what information is, and YOU refuse to look at the material at the links I've provided to you over and over, and YOU refuse to do anything else that would teach you, then YOU CHOOSE to be ignorant. Don't try to push blame off onto me.In addition, you have no foundation for making alleged factual statements concerning information if you don't know what it is.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-15-2003]

quote:

---

That point is illustrated here with you having to explain the transparently clear fact that there is a huge amount of information in the genome.

---

I know. When I was looking up and typing out all of the quotes I kept asking myself why I even bothered. It's almost like wasting time pulling quotes from a slew of math books to prove that there's such as thing as a Pythagorean theorem. Anyone who knows anything about math knows there's a Pythagorean theorem, and anyone who knows anything about biology knows that DNA contains information. That DNA contains information is a no-brainer - it's completely obvious - it's self-evident - it needs no support.

quote:

---

Heck, the experts in the field don't dispute this - their fight is over how it got there.

---

I was going to bring this up. I can understand people arguing about how the information got there, but I can't understand at all how someone can actually argue that it isn't even there![This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-15-2003]

True. Well, if you refuse to argue with a person who refuses to accept fallacious reasoning, I can't say I find that an enormous loss.

That's a physics specific definition, please show that
it is relvant to biological systems.

If a chemical process that is, given the right
environment, deterministic can imply that the
underlying chemicals contain information about the
reactions thay make, then hydrogen atoms must also.Given the right environment large numbers of different
compounds can be formed when hydrogen interacts with
other elements or compounds.Where do YOU draw the line between basic chemistry
and information.It is not at the level of the molecular structure
(which you implied by referring to a physics definition
of information).

Which definition of information are you using, and
in what way does it apply to a complex
chemical system?

quote:

---

That DNA contains information is a no-brainer - it's completely obvious - it's self-evident - it needs no support.

---

So it's an assumption on your part then?Your definition of information was 'reduction in uncertainty', with
the metric being that the less uncertainty there is the
more information is present.By this definition there is very little information in
DNA.1) You require a complete genome to be able to tell which organism
the genome is for.2) Even then you would need to know the proteins formed and the
timing of such, within the cell to determine which organism
you have the genome for.3) It is impossible to tell the next base in a sequence from
ANY previous sequence unless you already know the sequence ...
hence in an reduction of uncertainty sense there is no information
contained in a DNA sequence.

Hiya NosyNed:

​

"Kind of never got time for that"? Hmmm...

​

First, my previous post clearly indicated that I was short on time these days. Also, I did once (several months ago) invite you to a one-on-one discussion regarding information/specified complexity - remember? Just making sure since you seem to have forgotten that little episode. Finally, time being precious as it is, do you have specific questions in mind or is this the ol' shotgun approach?

​

Joralex

Suppose I take a perfect cube of graphite. I'm sure we can all degree that this is low in information, since it can be easily described in just a few formula.Now suppose I whack it as hard as I can with a sledge hammer.What are we left with? Well, a shattered pile of bits. Some large, some small, each requiring a whole load more information to describe than the original cube.Now, if I can increase the information in something just by smacking it with a sledgehammer; what exactly is the information increase problem?

"Which definition of information are you using, and in what way does it apply to a complex chemical system?" Oh, no - you're one of those arguing for the non-existence of information in the genome, right?

​

You ask "which definition of information am I using" and my reply to you is let's not waste too much time here and simply use some good ol' common sense, okay?

​

One thing about information that even laymen may understand is that information provides a specific definition of something that may exist in a variety of states. For example, a standard deck of playing cards may be arranged in 52! (52-factorial) different arrangements. If you knew the specific arrangement of those 52 cards then you have "information" - you've eliminated the uncertainty in the card sequence that existed prior to that knowledge.

​

Now apply the same thinking to a protein or a DNA molecule. In the case of proteins, there is no known mechanism that favors one arrangement of amino acids over another. Yet only very specific arrangements are useful to life (in that they make up proteins) while the vast majority of possible amino acid arrangements are total duds.

​

You're a smart lad ... think you can put the rest of it together from here, Peter?

​

Joralex

Symbol sequences do not contain information.Show this sequence of symbols to a 3 year-old or
anyone who is not able to understand written
english.The information in this sequence is in my head, I have
used a common coding format to convey that, but for the
information to be relayed it relies upon the same coding
ability/codex to be in the reader's head.The sequence does NOT inherently contain information, the
information is a mixture of the sequence and the learned
ability to interpret the sequence.Any arbitrary sequence can be used to convey information
provided that both the originator and the recipient
share the 'plan'.This is NOT the case with DNA.DNA is a chemical, it does what it does ... and sometimes
the combination of chemicals produced form what we
call life.It does not CODE for an organism in anything but an analagous
sense.