Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

I've never understood the "DNA has information" thing.

It's chemistry.

So Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can author War and Peace?

Do hydrogen and oxygen have information in them to form water?
How about carbon to form it's various structures?

Nope.

To me, and I'm sure someone will put me straight, DNA and its influence on building an organism is simply a more complex series of reactions.

This is tantamount to saying The Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (Space Shuttle Engine) is the effect of a complex series of reactions/emergent properties of copper and iron ores.


Information is neither matter or energy; it's Semiotic. It's that which "informs" or instructs; the basis for communication.

"Information" is ONLY... ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

"There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter." (emphasis mine}
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000


"Information"/Software is semiotic i.e., it's not physical (material) or physically a part of it's medium of conveyance. Letters, numbers (symbols) are just pre-arranged conventions between the Transmitter and Receiver for communication and to understand the message.

Software is the "Meaning", CODE are the Symbols that represent the agreed upon "Meaning".

See this......C A T ? (*Not allowed to post pics yet, but you get the idea). This is a "CODE". For what? ...

The Letters " C A T " aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name "WE" (Intelligent Agents) gave it. The message is the agreed upon meaning "Software"; it's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the pre-arranged agreed meaning between Paul and The Patriots.

What would have happened if Paul never shared the "Code" or the "Meaning" thereof with The Patriots?? (we might be having tea and strumpets daily )

Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights or Paul Revere and The Patriots ?? According to the Materialist/Realist world-view...it was The Lights!!

You're looking @ a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the preemptive agreed upon convention so we can understand the message, it's Semiotic.
Without agreed upon "Meaning" and Convention there is No Information/ "CODE", it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception!

The EXACT same concept here....

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine.
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

There are NO Physico-Chemical links between the " CODE " and amino acid or instruction. The Laws of Physics/Chemistry contain NO Symbolic Logic Functions.


What INFORMATION isn't...

Your "Interpretation" of the physical effects or consequences of the existence of inanimate objects is not "Information". When I put my hand under running water, the water's not communicating to me that it's "WET" or that it's "cold' or 'hot'. When a tree branch falls in the woods, the sound waves aren't "informing" me "I've fallen, and I can't get up".


hope it helps

 

[marplots]

(much snipped to ask a question)

Information is neither matter or energy; it's Semiotic. It's that which "informs" or instructs; the basis for communication.

"Information" is ONLY... ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

"Information"/Software is semiotic i.e., it's not physical (material) or physically a part of it's medium of conveyance. Letters, numbers (symbols) are just pre-arranged conventions between the Transmitter and Receiver for communication and to understand the message.

Software is the "Meaning", CODE are the Symbols that represent the agreed upon "Meaning".

For DNA, who is the transmitter and who is the receiver of the message?

 

[Daniel]

For DNA, who is the transmitter and who is the receiver of the message?

Intelligent Agency is the Source. The Medium (bare bones)...

DNA (CODE/Blueprint) ---> Ribosome (Receiver) via mRNA, tRNA, and the "Translator": Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetase's.

regards

 

[calebprime]

Tea and strumpets. I like that.

Not sure I can manage it daily, though, at my age.

 

[marplots]

Intelligent Agency is the Source. The Medium (bare bones)...

DNA (CODE/Blueprint) ---> Ribosome (Receiver) via mRNA, tRNA, and the "Translator": Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetase's.

regards

You said: ""Information"/Software is semiotic i.e., it's not physical (material) or physically a part of it's medium of conveyance. Letters, numbers (symbols) are just pre-arranged conventions between the Transmitter and Receiver for communication and to understand the message."

And it sounds like "intelligent agency" is the source, and I think you are giving an outline for the communication "chain," but I still don't understand who is receiving the communication. If it is a communication, don't we have to have the same restrictions on the sender and receiver, based on what you wrote?

Further, in order to have all the ingredients, one needs a sender, code/message, and receiver. Unless we have all three observed, we shouldn't be defining anything as fitting the structure outlined. In other words, unless we have some other definition for "information" we can't just assume a sender and/or receiver, since those two ingredients are necessary in the definition and part of what tells us it's information in the first place.

For example. Suppose there are three flat rocks stacked beside my driveway. If I am aware that hobos might make such a formation to indicate to other hobos that I am a nice person, I can rightly claim the circumstances indicate a sender (the hobo who stacked them), a message (the meaning of the stacked rocks), and a receiver (another hobo who knows the code). But, if I do not already know about hobos, I have no independent way to tell if the rocks have captured some meaning. They may have been accidentally placed in a stack when the snow melted, having been thrown on the snowbank by a passing plow truck.

To decide, I need to know what the agents are. Without that knowledge, I'm just guessing. This is why I am asking what the agents are in your theory and how we might independently test for them. Right now, you have stacked rocks. Show me the hobos.

 

[Giordano]

At the moment I am very unwilling to make the same responses to the same silly arguments proposed by Creationists over and over again; the facts are very well documented in this and other threads. They present the real ideas of evolutionary theory and correct the deliberate mis-interpretations that serve as propaganda for Creationists. It's all there, much of it in this very thread, in other threads on this forum, on the rest of the web and in books, if anyone really wants to know the real facts.

So like an aging fish, I really don't feel the need to rise to the bait yet again and make the same old corrections. For what purpose? Do the creationists really want (or will accept) the actual facts, or will they continue with their preferred distortions that allow them justify their fictional beliefs?

Frankly- be wrong if you insist and it makes you happy. As attributed to Galileo, "Still it moves."

 

[Daniel]

You said: ""Information"/Software is semiotic i.e., it's not physical (material) or physically a part of it's medium of conveyance. Letters, numbers (symbols) are just pre-arranged conventions between the Transmitter and Receiver for communication and to understand the message."

And it sounds like "intelligent agency" is the source, and I think you are giving an outline for the communication "chain," but I still don't understand who is receiving the communication. If it is a communication, don't we have to have the same restrictions on the sender and receiver, based on what you wrote?

Why? The designer of Windows 7 "Software" isn't in my CPU and not standing beside me... but my computer continues to work.

Further, in order to have all the ingredients, one needs a sender, code/message, and receiver. Unless we have all three observed, we shouldn't be defining anything as fitting the structure outlined. In other words, unless we have some other definition for "information" we can't just assume a sender and/or receiver, since those two ingredients are necessary in the definition and part of what tells us it's information in the first place.

I already posted what "Information" was, it's apodictic.

For example. Suppose there are three flat rocks stacked beside my driveway. If I am aware that hobos might make such a formation to indicate to other hobos that I am a nice person, I can rightly claim the circumstances indicate a sender (the hobo who stacked them), a message (the meaning of the stacked rocks), and a receiver (another hobo who knows the code). But, if I do not already know about hobos, I have no independent way to tell if the rocks have captured some meaning. They may have been accidentally placed in a stack when the snow melted, having been thrown on the snowbank by a passing plow truck.

I think I understand, see if this helps...

You walk into a restaurant, open up the Menu and read "Peking Duck with Roasted Garlic $28.95" ---- INFORMATION; then conclude, that until you see the Specific Intelligent Agent that wrote it.... that there's an Equal Chance that the Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules that make up the menu are responsible for the: Construction, Arrangement of the Letters, and the Message thereof!
Quite preposterous.

DNA contains INFORMATION: Algorithms "Programs" within "Programs" in Sub-Folders of "Programs". It has enough Functionally Specific Complex Information (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) in a teaspoon to fill a stack of Books from here to the Moon 500 Times! Your conclusion: Absent the Specific Intelligent Agent...... Ribose, Nucleo-Bases, and Activated Phosphates (The Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules) wrote The "Programs".....Genetic CODE.
Again, preposterous.

Moreover, "Information" displays Functionally Sequence/Specific Complexity; as opposed to Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity.


regards

 

[John Jones]

At the moment I am very unwilling to make the same responses to the same silly arguments proposed by Creationists over and over again; the facts are very well documented in this and other threads. They present the real ideas of evolutionary theory and correct the deliberate mis-interpretations that serve as propaganda for Creationists. It's all there, much of it in this very thread, in other threads on this forum, on the rest of the web and in books, if anyone really wants to know the real facts.

So like an aging fish, I really don't feel the need to rise to the bait yet again and make the same old corrections. For what purpose? Do the creationists really want (or will accept) the actual facts, or will they continue with their preferred distortions that allow them justify their fictional beliefs?

Frankly- be wrong if you insist and it makes you happy. As attributed to Galileo, "Still it moves."

Ditto.

 

[marplots]

I already posted what "Information" was, it's apodictic.

Then we don't need a sender or receiver at all. The, "I know it when I see it" standard only requires a pointing to. No author required. It's a fundamental observation.

I think I understand, see if this helps...

You walk into a restaurant, open up the Menu and read "Peking Duck with Roasted Garlic $28.95" ---- INFORMATION; then conclude, that until you see the Specific Intelligent Agent that wrote it.... that there's an Equal Chance that the Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules that make up the menu are responsible for the: Construction, Arrangement of the Letters, and the Message thereof!
Quite preposterous.

DNA contains INFORMATION: Algorithms "Programs" within "Programs" in Sub-Folders of "Programs". It has enough Functionally Specific Complex Information (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) in a teaspoon to fill a stack of Books from here to the Moon 500 Times! Your conclusion: Absent the Specific Intelligent Agent...... Ribose, Nucleo-Bases, and Activated Phosphates (The Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules) wrote The "Programs".....Genetic CODE.
Again, preposterous.

The difference between the two cases is that I am familiar with how menus are created. I am even capable of authoring one myself. I already know that random shuffling of ink and paper is extremely unlikely to produce a meaningful (to me) menu.

But I don't know this about DNA. I only know that it's passed on from parent to progeny in a semi-regular way. But further than that, I can't imagine how such a complex organic system could have been created. It seems, at least to my limited understanding, to be beyond the capabilities of any intelligence I am aware of.

I do, however, see that complex things arise in the natural world, seemingly without authorship. I also see that organisms reproduce, also seemingly without the help of an outside intelligent agency. If they are able to reproduce without help when I'm looking, why should I suppose they needed help when I wasn't around to look?

If someone wants to claim that somewhere, some-when, there had to be an original invention of DNA by an intelligence, and that started the whole chain of life going, I'd be interested in how it was done, but that wouldn't negate what happened in the many millions of years between then and now.

It seems if I accept that the whole network of life is carrying on it's merry way without constant interference from an engineer, I have no reason to require that engineer's presence save for some original design work. That doesn't tell me much about the long-gone engineer anyhow, or even what that original design might have looked like. Unless you think life (and DNA) is static, we don't have the menu in front of us, we have a rewrite of a rewrite of a proto-pseudo-menu from the distant and forgotten past - maybe even before you had restaurants or menus for them.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Why? The designer of Windows 7 "Software" isn't in my CPU

Do you know anthropomorphism is?

the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities

Just because Windows 7 was designed by humans doesn't mean that every pattern we see in the natural world has to have been designed by an 'intelligence'. Such a human-centric idea is actually quite arrogant and narrow-minded.

 

[stanfr]

You walk into a restaurant, open up the Menu and read "Peking Duck with Roasted Garlic $28.95" ---- INFORMATION; then conclude, that until you see the Specific Intelligent Agent that wrote it.... that there's an Equal Chance that the Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules that make up the menu are responsible for the: Construction, Arrangement of the Letters, and the Message thereof!
Quite preposterous.

Not so preposterous when you consider that a) the menu has had 14+ billion years to form, and b) the Information is not "random"ly placed, but is confined by the laws of physics, which likewise have been around for 14+ billion years.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I see we have a new member who doesn't understand what feedback loops are and what happens when they operate for millions of years.

 

[Daniel]

Then we don't need a sender or receiver at all.

Huh? Go ahead and show a case where "Information" is present and there is no sender and receiver....?

The difference between the two cases is that I am familiar with how menus are created. I am even capable of authoring one myself. I already know that random shuffling of ink and paper is extremely unlikely to produce a meaningful (to me) menu.

Yes, it's Functionally Sequence/Specifically Complex.

But I don't know this about DNA. I only know that it's passed on from parent to progeny in a semi-regular way. But further than that, I can't imagine how such a complex organic system could have been created. It seems, at least to my limited understanding, to be beyond the capabilities of any intelligence I am aware of.

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD - Guided). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/ Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

I do, however, see that complex things arise in the natural world, seemingly without authorship. I also see that organisms reproduce, also seemingly without the help of an outside intelligent agency.

It's not merely "complex"; again, it's Functional Sequence/Specifically Complexity that is the compelling factor of the matter.

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC)."

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk.

Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes.

Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature", "Shannon Information".

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity". {emphasis mine}
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973

"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physicochemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.

If someone wants to claim that somewhere, some-when, there had to be an original invention of DNA by an intelligence, and that started the whole chain of life going, I'd be interested in how it was done, but that wouldn't negate what happened in the many millions of years between then and now.

1. You can't even get the Physical Molecules, "Functional" (DNA/ RNA/ Proteins) "Naturally":

a. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE!
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin.

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...

b. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

2. "millions of years"?? Please Scientifically Validate...Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that confirms your claim...?
Please highlight the "Independent Variable" used in the TESTS....?

It seems if I accept that the whole network of life is carrying on it's merry way without constant interference from an engineer,

Can you validate that there is no "Interference", as you say?

I have no reason to require that engineer's presence save for some original design work.

Does that Rule Out HIS presence.

That doesn't tell me much about the long-gone engineer

Validate that HE'S "Long Gone"....?

...or even what that original design might have looked like.

Original Design?? Are you saying it was different 'then' than now?


regards

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Who is "HE" and who can vouch for "HIM"?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/ Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so.

 

[RussDill]

Why are we ignoring the third possibility?

 

[Daniel]

Do you know anthropomorphism is?

Yes. However, it's quite appropriate in this genre...

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta new cell driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics), Video Interview.


"The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found both in the genetic information system and in modern computer and communication codes." {emphasis mine}
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000

Just because Windows 7 was designed by humans doesn't mean that every pattern we see in the natural world has to have been designed by an 'intelligence'.

I'm not talking about "patterns", I'm talking about "Information": Functional Sequence/Specific Complexity.

Such a human-centric idea is actually quite arrogant and narrow-minded.

Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.

regards

 

[Daniel]

Not so preposterous when you consider that a) the menu has had 14+ billion years to form, and b) the Information is not "random"ly placed, but is confined by the laws of physics, which likewise have been around for 14+ billion years.

1. "Information" is neither Matter or Energy; the Laws of Physics have nothing to do with it.

2. "14+ Billion Years"?? Please Scientifically Validate...

Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that validates your claim...?
Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in the TESTS....?

regards

 

[Daniel]

Appeal to Ridicule (Fallacy).

Do you have a cogent substantive position or argument ?

regards

 

[Daniel]

Why are we ignoring the third possibility?

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/nCHWXvwm.png[/qimg]

So the 3rd Possibility is aliens?

Hmmm:

1. Nature (unguided)

2. Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided)

Your Choice --- 3. "Aliens". Would this fit in any of the 2 Categories above?

This is basically a punt: same questions, different Genesis location.


regards