Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

DNA != Software

Yes, that's correct...

"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)

"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

“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” {Emphasis Mine}
Paul Davies PhD Physics http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk

regards

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Yes, that's correct...

[Snipped spam]

You must be familiar with the concept of analogy? DNA isn't software. It is compared to software when explaining what it is. Which is not software, has no message from anyone, and does not require a fantastic fictional character like a god to work.

Still no evidence of a god presented, except for childish rhetoric.

 

[hecd2]

DNA != Software

Yes, that's correct...

Great, so we are making progress. So you agree that DNA does not equal software.

 

[Son of Inigo]

What on Earth sir? If he's disputing GENETIC and METABOLIC scenario's, errr....What's Left, pray tell?





There's 2 Mechanisms that he does not "Support"...

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

What's Left: Miracles ? Pixie Dust ? Other ?




oh brother

Here is the quote, with all your scare formatting removed, in the paragraph it comes from.

The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018

He is only disputing those geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on "if pigs could fly" hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help. Not all the geneticist or metabolist scenarios. Only those he disagrees with. He acknowledges that there is more work to be done, but he is not overturning TOE

And why do you dodge this quote. (and the specific questions I asked for regarding the ice layers) For the third time, would you care to dispute this quote?

The paper is intended to support a conventional Darwinian form of evolution based on reproduction, selection, and mutation of polymeric molecules and to argue against a different form of evolution based on self-organizing cycles of chemical reaction. Supporters of both sides of the argument take evolution for granted, as do all competent biologists, but they disagree about important details. … it would be appropriate to point out that all scientists carrying out experimental work on the origins of life believe that one form or another of Darwinism can adequately explain the origin of life on the earth without any recourse to "intelligent design.

From the exact same person. The one whose quote you optimistically hope concurs with your very unscientific view of the world. He is not disputing the conventional Darwinian form of evolution. He is to arguing against a different form of evolution based on self-organizing cycles of chemical reactions.

So, no, he is not making any pro-creationist point. This is a technical dispute, not a categorical dispute. You say the quote supports you, I am pretty confident that it does not. Especially when read in context.

Quote mining is getting you nowhere. It is a shallow and cheap attempt at twisting legitimate science into seemingly supporting your arguments.

 

[turingtest]

Because you conflated Pre-arranged Agreement with 2 Physical Beings communicating and forgot/ignorant of a "Pre-Programming" Scenario.





Then I responded with....

"I have CODE in my Computer... without the Software Designer in my CPU."

Which does have an Intelligent Agent....the Software "Designer" as it's Source.

The Software Designer in DNA/CODE/Software "Life" Genre, is an Intelligent Agent... in a similar vein.

There is no Equivocation here, not even close.

regards

Well, there's no equivocation, that's true- it's just a really bad analogy by which you've unequivocally begged the question in a tight little circle. You've "proven" the "Intelligent Agent" behind DNA by claiming the information in it is "code," which you've "proven" it is by defining information as necessarily and exclusively "code" only possible from Intelligent Agency. Well done...

But let's put that aside for now, no use arguing in circles that get you nowhere but where you've already gone. I had a point I was getting to with my post about observing god (which I notice you only replied to in part). Mea culpa, I didn't word it well, so...consider this a new question. According to your understanding of the Bohrs quote, no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it's observed, so...what actual observation of god creating DNA can you cite to make that a real (scientific) phenomenon? I understand your inferences, so, no, no more weak examples by analogy (like Mt Rushmore) are needed. I just want to know if you're capable of keeping your own feet to the same fire you insist everyone else test their science by.

Also...you've made your inferences about DNA=code=creation by Intelligent Design contingent on your (narrow) definition of "information" as carrying a message, and specifically said that, in the case of starlight and crystals, there is no information (since there is no message). Does this mean that starlight and crystals were not created by the (presumably same) Intelligent Agent? Or just that you believe they were, but you can only believe it? Or that you have some other criteria that can show their intelligently-directed creation?

As I said, this is all to a point; evidently we're going to have to get there by baby steps.

 

[GodMark2]

It sounds like you want to make a case that the process, although based on stochastic processes, could be designed to work just that way. But then I would ask to what extent the purpose of such a system could ever be determined in a one-off world?

I ask because, if the meaning is going to be meta (in relation to the "me on the ground") then doesn't the purpose also have to be located at that level as well?

All the hjighlighted words presuppose that there *must* be some purpose or meaning. This is not not required assumption. If you do not require 'meaning' or 'purpose' as a prerequisite, all these objections evaporate.

And, if it is, then what are we to make of a planet bursting with life since no single (or even many) species could be the target of such a system?

You're either mixing up individuals, species, and ecosystems, or you're still assuming that some 'entity' needs to 'create' the 'system' for some 'purpose' and 'target' it.

Individuals are the carriers of each experiment in fitness. Fitness improvement lead to future generations being more similar to the individual. Fitness diminishment leads to future generations being less similar to the individual.

Species are a convenient label we give a group of individuals that share enough common traits. They are subject to changing when enough individuals are added or removed (through birth and death) to change the nominal average of the group.

Ecosystems are a set of species and natural environments, all of which are interdependent on each other in some way. Ecosystems change when the relationships between the species within them change, or the natural environment changes.

 

[Daniel]

You must be familiar with the concept of analogy? DNA isn't software.

You're somewhat confused.

DNA is analogous to......."Computer Software".

DNA is not analogous to..............."Software".

Software is Information. DNA contains BOATLOADS of INFORMATION; Ergo...DNA is Software.


From the Grand Poobah, Geneticist of Geneticists...

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of LIFE".Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)


regards

 

[turingtest]

You're somewhat confused.

DNA is analogous to......."Computer Software".

DNA is not analogous to..............."Software".

Software is Information. DNA contains BOATLOADS of INFORMATION; Ergo...DNA is Software.


From the Grand Poobah, Geneticist of Geneticists...

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of LIFE".Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

regards

Does this mean that "computer software" is not (or not analogous to) "software"? I only ask because I want to see just how finely you can split a hair; I have to admit it's fascinating to see one get pared down to sub-microscopic levels, where it's not even a hair anymore.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You're somewhat confused.

DNA is analogous to......."Computer Software".

DNA is not analogous to..............."Software".

Software is Information. DNA contains BOATLOADS of INFORMATION; Ergo...DNA is Software.


From the Grand Poobah, Geneticist of Geneticists...

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of LIFE".Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)


regards

Do you think Mr Venter would agree with your overall position? If not isn't it dishonest to use his words like this?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

DNA contains BOATLOADS of INFORMATION; Ergo...DNA is Software.

A newspaper article contains information, ergo, a newspaper article is software.

Are you for real?

 

[Daniel]

Well, there's no equivocation, that's true

I know.

it's just a really bad analogy

It's not an analogy either.

by which you've unequivocally begged the question in a tight little circle.

It's not that either, I am not "presuming" my conclusion True. You're 0 - 3 so far.

You've "proven" the "Intelligent Agent" behind DNA by claiming the information in it is "code,"

More like "CODE" has Information, you can't have "A CODE" without it being Information. Information is what makes a Code....." A CODE ".

which you've "proven" it is by defining information as necessarily and exclusively "code" only possible from Intelligent Agency.

That's correct.

According to your understanding of the Bohrs quote, no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it's observed, so...what actual observation of god creating DNA can you cite to make that a real (scientific) phenomenon?

Well "The Phenomenon" that's Observed is "INFORMATION". Information is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency without Exception!! ERGO... Intelligent Designer.
"Information" is the Compelling Factor in the matter.

Also...you've made your inferences about DNA=code=creation by Intelligent Design contingent on your (narrow) definition of "information"

My definition of Information is quite comprehensive...

Information-- instructs or informs. It's the basis of all communication. It's neither Matter or Energy; it's Semiotic.

...as carrying a message, and specifically said that, in the case of starlight and crystals, there is no information (since there is no message).

Yes, and I said they don't contain " CODE ". They don't communicate with anything or anyone.

Do they send you messages?

Does this mean that starlight and crystals were not created by the (presumably same) Intelligent Agent?

Nope. All Matter/Energy was CREATED...they have A Cause, "The Ontological Primitive". They surely can't create Themselves. (SEE: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics "Pillar of Science")

Or just that you believe they were, but you can only believe it? Or that you have some other criteria that can show their intelligently-directed creation?

As mentioned, INFORMATION (and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity) are the compelling Factors in the Matter.

You can also stop in here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304638 and we can discover HIS EXISTENCE by the most successful branch of Physics in the History of Science...Quantum Mechanics. And guess what the compelling factor is for that also???... "Information"!! What a coincidence.

As I said, this is all to a point; evidently we're going to have to get there by baby steps.

No problem, I can slow down for you.


regards

 

[Daniel]

A newspaper article contains information, ergo, a newspaper article is software.

Who created the Information in the newspaper:

a. An Intelligent Designer.

b. the Ink/Paper Molecules.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Do you think Mr Venter would agree with your overall position?

He most assuredly would agree with: "DNA is ACTUALLY the SOFTWARE of LIFE"...cause he ahhh, said it.

He "believes" in evolution (whatever that is ) but I didn't ask him for his "beliefs" i.e.,: favorite color, favorite ice cream, his political affiliations, his stance on Integrity in State Government, or Baby Seals.
I was asking him for his Professional Opinion concerning Genetics.

If not isn't it dishonest to use his words like this?

Huh?? Dishonest? How on Earth is it dishonest, pray tell?

This is quite the Non-Sequitur you're attempting to float.


regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

Who created the Information in the newspaper:

a. An Intelligent Designer.

b. the Ink/Paper Molecules.


regards

Our answer is an induction from our experience of this class of thing. It is not licence to extrapolate to something we have never experienced first hand causation for. We have to hypothesise and test against observation for DNA.

 

[marplots]

Who created the Information in the newspaper:

a. An Intelligent Designer.

b. the Ink/Paper Molecules.


regards

Neither. A newspaper emerges from the efforts of many, competing "designers" - none of whom directs the whole show, nor can. The task is beyond that of an intelligence we are aware of, in the same manner that language itself is not intelligently designed but emerges from a stew of both intended and unintended interactions.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Who created the Information in the newspaper:

a. An Intelligent Designer.

b. the Ink/Paper Molecules.


regards

Nice dodge. There is no god. You have nothing.

 

[Daniel]

Does this mean that "computer software" is not (or not analogous to) "software"?

Computer Software is Software.

I only ask because I want to see just how finely you can split a hair

Yes, they have a name for the Technique; it's called Quibbling...and it's a Fallacy.


regards

 

[Son of Inigo]

~snipped stuff to get to 3rd mined quote~

“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” {Emphasis Mine}
Paul Davies PhD Physics http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk

regards

Daniel, you seem to be missing the salient point of this quote you mined. Paul Davies is NOT saying DNA equals information or software. He is saying it is best described as information or software.

It is not a scientific fact he is stating, it is an analogy.

Here is the quote again, with added context, with Daniel's scare formatting removed, and my bolding on the salient point of the quote.

Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.

He is not saying it is, but it can be thought of in that way. It doesn't, but it is the closest analogy to it that most people would understand. Analogy is not fact.

I use analogy to explain things in my day to day job all the time. An ISP is like an on-ramp to the super information freeway. Your computer is the car. It isn't the responsibility of the ISP to make sure your computer is able to access the on-ramp. If your car won't start and is thus not able to use the on-ramp, you don't call the local highway and bridge department, you call a tow truck. If once the car is able to start and is drive-able, if you have a problem with the on-ramp, then call us.

Are computers cars? Are ISP's on-ramps? Is the internet a super highway? Of course not. But I can and do use those analogies to help lay people understand why I, the tech support person they are talking to at the ISP, is not responsible for making sure their computer is functioning. They will have to call someone else to take care of it, not us.

But in your world, you would be looking for the key-fob to start your computer, because I (the computer expert) asked you to think of your computer as a car.

But Martha, the computer man at the internet thingy told me to think of it as a car, so it is exactly like a car. Hold my beer and pass me that can of starter fluid, that should get er done!

 

[Daniel]

Our answer is an induction from our experience of this class of thing. It is not licence to extrapolate to something we have never experienced first hand causation for.

So this is your position...

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!! for cryin out loud.

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 !!!!!

We have to hypothesise and test against observation for DNA.

No problem:

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.

Please Falsify....?

Basically, you have to show Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse.

regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

So this is your position...

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!! for cryin out loud.

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 !!!!!







No problem:

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.

Please Falsify....?

Basically, you have to show Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse.

regards

No that's a straw man of my position. I have experience of printed artefacts and restaurants and make the induction that they were created and how.

On the other hand I came into this world where a little before I was born we started to understand the chemistry that carries our inherited features. I have no warrant to extrapolate from experiences of paintings, watches or newspapers to the unexperienced causation of DNA.