Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Add a liberal dose of unwarranted trust in your socially inherited common-sense knowledge, a distrust in erudition removed from day to day experience, and you are away arguing expertly on any subject.
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
This comment really nails it. Sadly, religious brainwashing and subsequent ugly behavior goes on and is accepted throughout the world.
Not so much a Christian thing as a human thing.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,796
That's not a message. That's a computer-generated image.
Unless you think a computer-generated image is a message... in which case, anything that appears on a computer screen is, by definition, a message. But that would be really stupid.
So, go ahead. Use your words. Tell me the message in DNA.
RussDill
Philosopher
So if the human knowing the experimental setup is so critical, why do similar experiments where the experimental setup is chosen randomly still produce the same results?
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,964
If it's random it's not chosen. You need INTELLIGENCE to chose. No true texas strawman fallacy. Elevensies!
Regards
Here is Daniel at his very best: making up definitions that suit his purposes. Information, as everyone else other than Daniel knows, doesn't have to be for communication at all, as it isn't in this case. Daniel needs sophistry and his own definitions before his case even starts to make sense even to him, so that's what he does. Self delusion is one thing, but you can't brow-beat us, Daniel, because it is clear as the day what you are doing, and we're immune. Carry on banging your head against your own particular wall.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Probably Satan blinding us to the TruthTM.
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Yea Daniel is arguing a misunderstanding of information theory because he presumes a function, a sense, existing in DNA and then equivocating it to Shannon Information Theory where one must presume the string has a definite sense if decyphered. He thinks that the protein products of DNA are evidence of the decyphered message, which again must prove the string was crafted and made by a message writer. He literally demands an axiom that doesn't exist.
Now I'll admit that I had to struggle to even articulate the above because it's so wrong, and requires a misunderstanding so complex that I can't even imagine how he even thought it up because it's such a leap of logic to equivocate physical chemistry with I(X;Y) = H(X)-H(X|Y) and say "aha, then obviously DNA is a communication and specifically a MESSAGE (from God?)"
The line between ignorance and brilliance is blurred, because on the one hand it's so wrong but like modern art, it's captivating (to some at least) in its audacity.
Last edited:
For goodness sakes people...
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html
Is Dr. Venter 'presuming' a function here?
Shannon Information Theory has Absolutely Nothing whatsoever to do with Function.
"As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2, 3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)
Do you even now what equivocation means?
1. Sure. Thanks for the Color Commentary.
2. you struggled to Articulate it?? I wonder why ??
I didn't equivocate it with this (lol)... I(X;Y) = H(X)-H(X|Y)
They knew it had nothing to do with 'physical chemistry' just before Woodstock...
"As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content."
Polanyi, M., Life’s irreducible structure, Science 160:1308, 1968
What Professor Polanyi is essentially saying is... When viewing a Magnetic Board with the message: "Be back Later, Gone Fishing. The Instructions are on the table, have the Exponential Specifically Complex Space Shuttle built when I return. Have a nice day"; then concluding...
That the force between Magnets of the Letters and the Board IS NOT responsible for the Construction, Arrangement of those Letters, and the Message thereof!!
Apparently you disagree??
Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Prize Genetics ....
"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese". ---caltech.edu 7/22/2004
He's saying that The Medium (DNA/RNA---The Physical Molecules) is irrelevant and arbitrary.
However, since you seemed to be implying these gentlemen are confused
, Please show the Physico-Chemical links...CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!
Go ahead, start with DNA Transcription. mmm K?
oh brother, it might be a good idea to attend an 80 level Biology Course in the near future, eh?
oy vey
Last edited:
Don't be ridiculous. He is saying nothing of the kind. He is saying that us understanding the chemistry of DNA is unimportant to our understanding of what DNA does. Sheesh, don't you get tired of mis-representing what people say?
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
David L Abel is an outright fraud. And you guys fall for him hook, line and sinker.
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Dude your response doesn't even address the point I've made, and HOLY CRAP you quoted Ed Lewis but it has NOTHING to do with your assertion that the physical molecules were irrelevant. He was talking about how we understood the hereditary pattern of PHENOTYPES before we understood the chemistry of DNA. He never said nor asserted the chemistry was irrelevant he was saying that we could OBSERVE and correlate the inheritance of phenotypes before we knew about DNA and genes!
And the codon sequences are what THERMODYNAMICALLY synthesize amino acids which are then THERMODYNAMICALLY bonded to form proteins, and sterochemistry dictates their spatial orientation and that orientation can be functional. The physio-chemical link is obvious, I don't even understand what you're trying to say to the contrary. Is it that the sequences aren't arbitrary? Well no crap dude, thermodynamics is anything but arbitrary. Does that make the sequences a message? No, it's not even being communicated in transcription and translation, it's really just being a substrate. It would be dishonest to give DNA the privilege of being a message, as it isn't one. It's just a substrate. A really neat one for sure.
As to the little magnets and board scenario that isn't an appropriate analogy because the arrangements are driven by stereochemistry ONLY, not by a message writer, and the synthesis of RNA is nothing more than the interaction of the molecules. Where is there a message in any of this? Nowhere, it's not communicating anything. A snowflake isn't directed to form in the unique configuration that it ultimately forms, it merely is slave to physics. That's the same for DNA and cell processes. The DNA isn't instructing the cell, it's merely a substrate to maximize particular functions. When your mother dropped you on your head as a child, she wasn't directing you fall and hit the ground, physics just allows for it.
So again, you want to argue that DNA is a message but you can't presume it's true first and take (very ignorant) approaches to theories a scrapbook an argument around that.
And you absolutely ARE equivocating with Shannon Information here, it's the only way you have argued that DNA is a message. It's not a valid argument, but I can tell that won't stop you.
And the codon sequences are what THERMODYNAMICALLY synthesize amino acids which are then THERMODYNAMICALLY bonded to form proteins, and sterochemistry dictates their spatial orientation and that orientation can be functional. The physio-chemical link is obvious, I don't even understand what you're trying to say to the contrary. Is it that the sequences aren't arbitrary? Well no crap dude, thermodynamics is anything but arbitrary. Does that make the sequences a message? No, it's not even being communicated in transcription and translation, it's really just being a substrate. It would be dishonest to give DNA the privilege of being a message, as it isn't one. It's just a substrate. A really neat one for sure.
As to the little magnets and board scenario that isn't an appropriate analogy because the arrangements are driven by stereochemistry ONLY, not by a message writer, and the synthesis of RNA is nothing more than the interaction of the molecules. Where is there a message in any of this? Nowhere, it's not communicating anything. A snowflake isn't directed to form in the unique configuration that it ultimately forms, it merely is slave to physics. That's the same for DNA and cell processes. The DNA isn't instructing the cell, it's merely a substrate to maximize particular functions. When your mother dropped you on your head as a child, she wasn't directing you fall and hit the ground, physics just allows for it.
So again, you want to argue that DNA is a message but you can't presume it's true first and take (very ignorant) approaches to theories a scrapbook an argument around that.
And you absolutely ARE equivocating with Shannon Information here, it's the only way you have argued that DNA is a message. It's not a valid argument, but I can tell that won't stop you.
Last edited:
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,964
Too much information. (☻)
Last edited:
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
I'm just excited to start about talking stereochemistry. If he thinks DNA is a message, then the ATP Synthase would be War and Peace.
Sure.
rotflol, What on Earth...
"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese"-- Ed Lewis
Yes this surely is about PHENOTYPES
Is the Declaration of Independence a treatise for calculating the GNP of the Netherlands?My word.
Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get codons (Genes)?? Start here...
1. 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 !
Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...
"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?
ha ha ha, this is Nonsensical buffoonery.
Show Codons "thermodynamically"
synthesizing amino acids...?Then show it...? Start with DNA Transcription then finish up with DNA Translation...?
This comment is Non-Sequitur Fallacy on Steroids.
No message?? And not being communicated, eh? I mean, this is quite preposterous. And again...
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html
This is just one of THOUSANDS that directly contradict your nonsense.
A substrate??
What's the "Reagent"....?It's really 'neat', eh? Was the Space Shuttle really really BIG?
Sir, your responses are tantamount to a Neuro-Surgical candidate showing up for an interview with the department head of Neurosurgery and during the interview, stating: "What's a Cerebellum??".
They're really that bad...some, much worse.
oy vey x 1,000