Evolving New Information

You might try perusing the threads over at the Origin of Life forum. Some possible condidates:

• first genetic material
  
• From protobionts to living cells
  
• The "Digital Code" of DNA

You could also propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy

"I can quickly see it is an evolved thing and not a designed thing."I will answer this and move on because I realize we have gotten off topic.I don't agree with that. That is pure assumption for anyone living in pre-Darwinian times would almost never come to such a conclusion. There are some organisms in the world that simply defy a Darwinian explanation...especially those that have not only do not have transitional forms in the fossil record, there are not fossils of them yet discovered. Like: Or...Grammatostomias flagellibarba: I will take this up elsewhere.

Well, when we don't know the answer, that's as definitive an answer as you can get. However, we have chemists and biologists working on this problem and making very substantial headway. I would expect an answer within my lifetime.

Of course, it is unlikely that someone in pre-Darwinian times would be able to see the difference. That is the point. We now have an understanding of the nature of the evolutionary mechanisms and we can even use them to generate outcomes. We have the knowledge to allow us to examine the nature of the car and an animal and see that one is a very good match for the end of one process and the other a very good match for the end of an utterly different process.Why would you bring up the "pre-Darwinian" times when it is not relevant to our current state of knowledge? Your example in no way defies a Darwinian explanation. It also matches the outcome of evolutionary processes.Why does it matter if we have the detailed steps or not? It still matches the pattern we expect. It's genetics still fit within the overall pattern of all life. There is nothing anomalous about it. It is simply one of many, many things for which we don't have good fossils.You wouldn't make that comment if you knew anything about taphonomy(google it).Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

"Of course, it is unlikely that someone in pre-Darwinian times would be able to see the difference. That is the point. We now have an understanding of the nature of the evolutionary mechanisms and we can even use them to generate outcomes."You don't get it. Evolution does not exist. It never did.Common sense dictates that since there is NO example of nature generating life by natural processes and since life is so exceedingly complex (as I stated earlier; not just tiny machines but entire manufacturing regions of factories) and since nature does not make information outside of already existing DNA coded organisms then the only option left to the scientist is a supernatural one. The intricacy and sheer velocity of the transcription/translation/assembly process of the DNA alone is mind boggling.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_Ne5mS2ls&feature=relatedBut we are off topic and I wish to stop here. I don't wish to be reprimanded on my first day aboard EVC.Thank you. Have a nice evening.

Could we get this set up as a new thread?We've got a live one here!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You got it, Jack.

Here's one Information theory's an infant. Mathematics is a specialized way of thinking, it doesn't change because we're talking about bits. Who says bits is the bases of information transfer. We use bits because it's convenient.Transmitting bits from one place to another. Just like your binary "Flashing lights". If I was to put more effort into constructing the hardware, that is, the encoder and decoder, then I could juggle my three objects with just one bit. That is, I could rewrite my code with just a "1". The problem you have, still, is that you don't understand that communication is more than just bits; bits is a convenient mathematical representation.For example; you don't know whether an adenine paired with a guanine is just a bit. Or whether an adenine paired with a guanine is other than a bit when next to a cytosine and a thymine. No, that's how you're defining information, not me. Cavediver, being a physicst, and you Percy, a software engineer, we've all done these things, we know given another hour or so we will be able to reduce the amount symbols on the sheet. What you are telling me is that no intelligence is required. Yes I can argue with that, I already have. Did you forget that you are arguing for evolution. I'm saying that using the communication system I used, which is an entire communication structure, with a predefined syntax, that's how many symbols I need to use to get the message across. I can redefine the communication system to only require one signal. I don't really want to contribute any more to this discussion. I think I have proved my point. You don't get information for nothing, you don't get matter for nothing and space is without natural explanation. Taking these facts, and the fact that we are here discussing these things only shows that there are certain people that prefer to hide their head under the pillow.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

I said that Shannon didn't conduct experiments to develop information theory, not that he never conducted any experiments ever. Information theory is a mathematical, not an experimental, science, but it does have real world applications. That is precisely the point, that information theory is not concerned with meaning. If you're talking about meaning then you're not talking about information theory. No, that's how you defined information. I inquired how you were calculating the amount of information in your program, and you replied like this: So how did you calculate the amount of information in your program that you provided in Message 339: I presume you didn't just make them up, so where did they come from? Well, okay, yes, you have argued with it, but that log₂3 is 1.585 bits, and that DNA uses 12 bits to represent these 1.585 bits, and that the difference between them is 10.415 bits, are mathematical facts as undeniable as 2+2=4. You can argue if you like, but not rationally.--Percy

Hi LucyTheApe,This is a response to your Message 275 over in the Adding information to the genome. thread.In Message 339 you provided these figures for the amount of information in the code snippets you provided:

• Shell: 832 bits
• First section of code: 1752 bits
• Second section of code: 376 bits

Could you please show us how you calculated those figures? Thanks.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

So what is this problem? From my understanding, the problem is how to get a message between the sender and receiver and have the sender's message understood.So for DNA, what is the sender and who is the receiver? You need these parameters in order to apply information theory, if my understanding is correct. If you are using software to compare with DNA then you are missing an important mechanism, descent with modification passed through selection. If the software language is as malleable as DNA sequence then it is enitrely possible to remove unnecessary code from the program without an intelligence. Just allow for random changes, including deletion of code (just as DNA deletions occur), and then select on the basis of function.Going even further, we can also look at a comparison between computer hardware and biological hardware. I've only done a tiny bit of programming, but I have done enough to know one thing, the computer will blindly follow instructions no matter what the consequences of those instructions are. The genetic systems of life are EXACTLY like this. The ribosome does not come up to a specific codon and proclaim, "I can't attach this amino acid because it will cause disease". The ribosome is an automaton just like the computer. It will carry out it's tasks blindly, without knowing or caring about the consequences. The same goes for each of the processes within genetics, from replication to transcription to translation.So what really imparts information into DNA? The usefullness of it's function just as it is with computer programs. If a computer program does not work we throw it out. The same for organisms. If the organism does not function in a given environment it is chucked.So it is the environment that inputs information into the genome through selection. Variation in information is created by mutation. No intelligence required.

lucy, I have not forgotten that I asked you to define information for us - specifically how you calculate it - and that you still have not done so in any meaningful way when dealing with genetics.For example (and to be very short, because I am under no illusions that you'll ever actually answer), I have not forgotten that I showed you a natural occurence whereby information can be increased in a genome, thereby fulfilling your requirements for your modified shell program.I have not forgotten not forgotten that I and others showed you a natural occurence resulting in new varieties, thereby fulfilling your requirements for "something which wasn't there before".Don't think I didn't notice when you said that an increased amount of bits for your modified shell program counted as "new information", but that you also flatly said "No, that's how you're defining information, not me." to the question "You think the amount of information in a program is equal to the number of bits output by its compiler?" - which is exactly what you WERE saying.You still claim that natural processes cannot increase the amount of information in things, but hey, I'm reasonably certain that you contain a lot more information now than when you were conceived, and I'm reasonably sure all of that was naturally acquired, not downloaded matrix-style.Don't bother posting meaningless diatribes like the post I (and others, better than I) have just once again trodden the same well-worn path on, all the messages you posted in and all the requests you've been given are still there, and they're still unanswered.

Hi Taq,Since LucyTheApe is apparently going to take their time replying, I'd like to respond to this: These are what I think are the two primary ways in which DNA can be interpreted as a sender of information:

1. The sender is the organism's DNA and the receiver is the organism itself. The DNA message is translated into proteins that then travel throughout the body delivering the message.
   ​
2. The sender is the organism's DNA and the receiver is the offspring, which receives a copy of its parent's DNA. The DNA copy may contain errors, and for sexual species the DNA will usually be a combination of DNA from both parents.

There are additional ways of answering the question, but I think these are the most obvious. Hopefully there's no reason why creationists wouldn't look at it the same way.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi LucyTheApe,For some reason you keep popping in and out every month or three, and now you're apparently doing it again, so here's some additional information that may help break this pattern.People don't believe you know much about information theory because you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge over and over again. You appear to be trying to solve the problem of how to win a debate on a topic you know little about, and so you've adopted this strange strategy of "post a couple messages then exit for a couple months."I know you want to drop the discussion about how you calculated the amount of information in your programs, but the mere fact that you thought it was possible tells us you have no idea what you're doing. Until you finally understand that whatever calculations you were doing were wrong you're not going to be seeking answers to how one actually calculates information.So you're going to have to explain how you calculated the amount of information in your programs. When you finally admit to yourself that you can't do it (something that everyone following this discussion already realizes), only then will we be able to make progress.--Percy

I would add a 3rd option as the most important. Since DNA is always spoken of as a code with four letters, 3 codons, and so forth it is important to relate these to the actual chemical reactions.For making a cell work the sender is DNA, the reciever is ribosomes. The intermediate communication transfer system is the transcription of RNA template from DNA.So I guess you can break it down into cell function (my 3rd option), fitness (your first option), and change in populations (your 2nd option). In order for anyone to discuss information as it relates to DNA and evolution they need to be specific on these issues. Sadly, such specification (pun intended) is lacking most of the time.