I earlier gave you example of Alphabits cereal. If you arrange three letters to spell "yes", that is information. But if you jostle the box and three letters fall out to spell "yes", that is also information.
Yes, it mimics real intended coded information.
And that is the same thing that DNA does. You've just been tricked into thinking the mimicing is real.
In fact, any arrangement of letters is information. That some arrangements happen to correspond to words to which we attach meaning (which as Shannon tells us is independent of information) is irrelevant to the information itself. Speaking digitally, information is just bits, it doesn't matter what meaning people might attach to the arrangement of bits.
Until you can make the distinction between information and coded information systems you will never understand what is being argued here Percy. Yes anything that happens gives off "information" just by it's very state. It tells us something about itself, or possibly something about what it may have encounted. But there is no code intended to be sent and decoded. No intended information.
All the examples you continue to offer are only information about themselves or other things they have come in contact with in some fashion. There is no decoder that this information is intended for. This information means nothing until we assign meaning to it.
The same thing goes for DNA.
In DNA, there is real coded information, a real signal which is intended to be successfully decoded and implemented.
Whoa... wait. Nuh-uh... you just made that up. Do you have any support for this assertion?
Is there only one way to say something in the English language? "Let's go to my crib." "Let's go to my house." "Let's proceed to my crib." "Let's head to my house." Of course not, but in each case, they still require a specific sequential arrangment of English letters to produce functional meaningful text.
Acutlaly, you olny need the frsit and lsat leteres to be the smae to get the piont asrcos.
quote:I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.
But here is the problem. The word "yes," can be accounted for statistically through the laws of probability. Not to mention the very favorable conditions of having a box full of intelligently designed letters to begin with.
How about a complete sentense of 30 or so words? How about a complete paragraph of a few hundred words? This is why many scientists no longer hold to the chance or "happy frozen accident" hypothesis.
So you're changing the argument to DNA being too complex to have arrisen naturally...
You might want to catch up with the science behind this so your Argument from Incredulity doesn't look so ignorant. Here ya go:
quote:Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primary of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows: The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.