Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Hlafordlaes]

... Chemistry (Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins et al) are merely "The Medium" for conveying Information, much like Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules --- and just like them, they don't Author War and Peace/Technical Instruction Manuals or Blueprints....

I'll just take this head-on right here. Where is the 'information?' What in fact is going on in observable terms is a series of chemical reactions. 'Information' is a handy way of describing the functional results of self-perpetuating chemical systems that evolved on the Earth. Chemical reactions are the same thing as information transfer, or the other way around. Same thing, only one is a metaphor, the other a physical description.

Physical descriptions are what the basic science depends on. Functional descriptions are reserved for the behavior of the systems, i.e., what they do, and so may rely on metaphor to describe what is going on, such as in this case, language relating to encoding. Functional descriptions are therefore closer to the eye of the beholder, and add a greater level of interpretive understanding.

This is why applying your metaphor for artificially encoded systems was off. There is no actual message here, no obligatory senders or receivers; rather, there is a self-perpetuating and natural physical reaction in the form of life. And yes, evolution wrote this particular chemical novel, if we are using metaphors. The rest is what we make of it. Push it too far from the data, and the whole rationalist house of cards comes a-crashing down.

 

[acbytesla]

ALL "Information" is only ever ever sourced via Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

Nature's not Intelligent or Sentient: ERGO...it can not source Information.

No that is simply an assertion that ignores that clearly it does and has been.

Yes it is, by Validating/Confirming the Alternate Hypothesis (AGAIN):

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Code/Software.

Alternate Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/Code/Software.

It's quite simple and elegant, SO Go ahead....?

How do we test for this Daniel? How do we prove or disprove it? We must be able to TEST the component for it to be falsifiable. That you can create a NULL statement does not make it falsifiable. It's like Schrodinger's cat. We can think of the cat as both or either dead or alive but we don't know until we open the box.

It's surely Falsifiable; We got Nature and we got "Information", SHOW !!

And Please show how "Nature"--- Matter and Energy can Produce "Information"---neither Matter or Energy...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

Is Nature, Supernatural ??


regards

I really don't understand any of that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[RussDill]

Prove it.

You might start by providing us with a coherent definition of "information".

Yup, already pointed out not only many problems with his definition of information, but also places where he contradicts himself.

His argument is incredibly childish anyway. "There are two things that are red. I know how one of them comes about. Therefore, the other thing must come about the same way."

Especially since he's declared we can't make scientific assessments of things that happened in the past.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Moral of the story: it's a waste of time trying to have a grown up conversation with a creationist. You'd have more success talking to a deaf artichoke.

 

[JeanTate]

Daniel's escape clause for all this is simply to declare his hypothesis "The Null Hypothesis"; in DanielScience, this means never having to say he's wrong, because, for him, it means he bears no burden of falsifiability, so he can just skip all the requirements for research and testability. When, of course, in real science, it's especially the proponent of a hypothesis (null or not) who bears that burden; otherwise, all you have is a prophet proclaiming a faith.

Daniel doesn't like being told he's just practicing a religion, and, in a way, I agree. He's certainly not a very good Christian if he insists on either limiting his god or reading its mysterious mind; after all, he's doing one or the other if he says that either god couldn't have or wouldn't have used evolution ("what's that!?!?!?!?") to get results.

Well, "The Null Hypothesis" is what, exactly?

Taking my cue from a very recent post by Daniel:

Null Hypothesis: DNA does not contain/have/whatever Information/Code/Software.

Alternate Hypothesis: DNA does contain/have/whatever Information/Code/Software.

Daniel has asserted that the Alternative Hypothesis is true, but has never shown any evidence - consistent with Danielscience - to support his assertion.

 

[hecd2]

Well @ least it's better than that trainwreck Incoherent "De-coherence" nonsense -- that got Bludgeoned to Death, you floated in the QM Thread.

Ah yes, one of those times you referenced a paper (The Schlosshauer review paper on decoherence) in a vain attempt to prove your point, where the referenced paper argued against your position. Your silly claim got thoroughly bludgeoned there (to use your own inelegant language). Your problem is that you are too ignorant of the subject to understand the papers you cite and too arrogant to be corrected by those who can understand the science - incorrigible and invincibly ignorant.

Rather than repeat the argument again here, you can find how Daniel's claim was whupped at this link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11184917#post11184917

ETA: This link is to my earlier post that covers the ground in more detail: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11182348#post11182348

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by RussDill
Mathematics exist everywhere in reality because that's how we model reality.

This makes no sense. How could mathematical models describe and predict physical behavior if the universe did not behave mathematically?

 

[Daniel]

No that is simply an assertion that ignores that clearly it does and has been.

Sure and I'm just overwhelmed with all your Evidence/Examples here

And "Na'ahh" is not a position.

How do we test for this Daniel? How do we prove or disprove it? We must be able to TEST the component for it to be falsifiable.

Well you have Scientific Laws (Natural Laws): Gravity, Laws of Motion, Gas Laws, Thermodynamics et al... have them wicker up Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding schemes. Voila!!

Oh, and I'm not hear to prove your Case Counselor, it is YOUR trainwreck YOU reconcile it.

That you can create a NULL statement does not make it falsifiable.

The Null is Valid, it's Prima Facia.

It's like Schrodinger's cat. We can think of the cat as both or either dead or alive but we don't know until we open the box.

It's EXACTLY not like that.

I really don't understand any of that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Well that's no surprise, you didn't know what a Null Hypothesis was a couple of hours ago.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Ah yes, one of those times you referenced a paper (The Schlosshauer review paper on decoherence) in a vain attempt to prove your point, where the referenced paper argued against your position. Your silly claim got thoroughly bludgeoned there (to use your own inelegant language).

Yes and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her Florist.

The Schlosshauer Reference was just the Tip of the IceBerg; the OP (Remember That?? )...Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5, Pummeled your position before you even posted for goodness sakes.
You can't recover.

Here, have somebody explain to you why: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11166324&postcount=1


regards an oy vey

 

[Daniel]

Moral of the story: it's a waste of time trying to have a grown up conversation with a creationist. You'd have more success talking to a deaf artichoke.

Coming from someone who's Foundation Corner-Stone, Pillars of his "Belief" System are....

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

I would be somewhat cautious casting Baseless Aspersions of others Mental Acuity/Faculties when tied to those shroom-induced coma's.


regards

 

[Daniel]

I'll just take this head-on right here.

Yea, ok

Where is the 'information?'

Yea, that's what I'm asking YOU. You said below it's Chemistry i.e., Atoms and Molecules....SO, where is it, SHOW??

What in fact is going on in observable terms is a series of chemical reactions.

Yes, like Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace.

Chemical reactions are the same thing as information transfer, or the other way around. Same thing, only one is a metaphor, the other a physical description.

SHOW IT!!! Show on DNA Proper the Instructions for: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase....?

Show the Physico-Chemical Links (for the 2nd Time)...

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

Show it and stop wasting my time.

This is why applying your metaphor for artificially encoded systems was off. There is no actual message here, no obligatory senders or receivers; rather, there is a self-perpetuating and natural physical reaction in the form of life.

"Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)."
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29

"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

Take the next 3 days off...then quit.

And yes, evolution wrote this particular chemical novel...

oh brother, If you would have said "Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons wrote it" it would be more sound.


my word

 

[Perpetual Student]

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

regards

Again and again and again: the same mind numbing mantra -- devoid of understanding, meaning or intelligence -- but a vivid indication of the ignorance and impovershed knowledge of the messenger.

 

[Jodie]

Coming from someone who's Foundation Corner-Stone, Pillars of his "Belief" System are....

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

I would be somewhat cautious casting Baseless Aspersions of others Mental Acuity/Faculties when tied to those shroom-induced coma's.


regards

I thought Comfy's pillars of foundation were made of bacon......

 

[ComfySlippers]

I thought Comfy's pillars of foundation were made of bacon......

I heard my name so, as if by magic, I appear in front of the mortals.

Yup. Bacon. And coffee.

Tbh my pillars of foundation could be made of clotted cheese and they'd still be made of stronger stuff than childish creationist bollocks.

I have spoken.
You may continue.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure and I'm just overwhelmed with all your Evidence/Examples here

And "Na'ahh" is not a position.
Well you have Scientific Laws (Natural Laws): Gravity, Laws of Motion, Gas Laws, Thermodynamics et al... have them wicker up Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding schemes. Voila!!

Oh, and I'm not hear to prove your Case Counselor, it is YOUR trainwreck YOU reconcile it.


The Null is Valid, it's Prima Facia.


It's EXACTLY not like that.


Well that's no surprise, you didn't know what a Null Hypothesis was a couple of hours ago.


regards

Actually "Na'ahh" is the status quo position.
I don't need evidence to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Always and forever. I can no more prove there isn't a creator than you can prove there is one. So I'm not going to be an idiot and try.

You know a tiny bit of science and then think you can assert to a bunch of skeptics that you have a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis for proving there is a God. If you did, it would be groundbreaking news worthy of a Nobel Prize. You woulod be famous as well as a millionaire as the Nobel Prize for Science is in excess of a million dollars these days. You could earn speaking fees in the tens of thousands of dollars. But your hypothesis is poorly defined and 100 percent not falsifiable.

 

[Nonpareil]

Oh, and I'm not hear to prove your Case Counselor, it is YOUR trainwreck YOU reconcile it.

No, it's your argument. You are the one arguing that DNA contains some substance that cannot come about except by the direct action of an intelligent agency. It is your responsibility to define this substance, determine how its existence might be detected, and then prove that it exists in DNA.

You have not done any of these things. You have simply asserted that it is so, and demonstrated your complete failure to understand the most basic principles of logic and science in doing so.

The Null is Valid, it's Prima Facia.

The null hypothesis with regards to DNA is also exactly the opposite of what you claim it is.

Yea, that's what I'm asking YOU. You said below it's Chemistry i.e., Atoms and Molecules....SO, where is it, SHOW??

No, you said that. You are the one who needs to show it.

Of course, that would require you to have a coherent definition of information first. And you don't. So you can't, and you won't.

SHOW IT!!! Show on DNA Proper the Instructions for: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase....?

Show the Physico-Chemical Links (for the 2nd Time)...

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

Show it and stop wasting my time.

I reiterate my previous point about individual bits and their relationship to a computer program.

"Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)."
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29

"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

Take the next 3 days off...then quit.

And, again, no mention whatsoever of a requirement for an intelligent agency. This is because, in case you haven't figured it out yet, these people have very clear definitions of "information", "messages", and "software" which notably do not necessitate the existence of an intelligent agency to explain their existence.

Please present your alternative definitions, explain why they require the existence of an intelligent agency, and show us your evidence that your definitions apply to DNA.

 

[RussDill]

This makes no sense. How could mathematical models describe and predict physical behavior if the universe did not behave mathematically?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. It follows our models closely enough for it not to practically matter.

 

[RussDill]

Yes and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her Florist.

Back to bashing dead mothers I see, and just in time for her children to pass another mother's day without her. How Christian of you.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... Yea, that's what I'm asking YOU. You said below it's Chemistry i.e., Atoms and Molecules....SO, where is it, SHOW??

SHOW IT!!! Show on DNA Proper the Instructions for: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase....?

Show the Physico-Chemical Links (for the 2nd Time)...

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

Show it and stop wasting my time.

Thanks for making all chemical references so far.

"Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)." Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29

This author is a quack. I read the work, found his definition of bits and information (OK), found that it really refers to a physical 3D system as I have already pointed out (OK), and then found all his wonderful stumbling around wrt abiogenesis, and his search for an original programmer. He confuses metaphor with reality.

"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

Sure, a pop-sci work stressing the functional, not physical. What else is new? Once again, only a chemical system that we have learned how to manipulate.

I'd go back and find the first author's definition of a bit and use it against you, but I have work to do today. Perhaps later.

oh brother, If you would have said "Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons wrote it" it would be more sound... my word

I see you are in a good mood. You will need it.

 

[Jodie]

I guess Daniel didn't know what to say to my comparison of primordial goo to chicken gravy.