Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

So let me get this straight, since information is that which informs or instructs, and being informed or instructed must require a knower, DNA does not contain information, as it does not inform or instruct observers. Am I following along properly?

DNA contains the Instructions/Blueprint for LIFE and all of it's processes.

The Information "CODE" is Pre-Programmed. There are no "Knowers"/Observers in my CPU...but it processes a boatload of Information and Instructions each day.

regards

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

DNA contains the Instructions/Blueprint for LIFE and all of it's processes.

The Information "CODE" is Pre-Programmed. There are no "Knowers"/Observers in my CPU...but it processes a boatload of Information and Instructions each day.

regards

Hang on...if there are no knowers or observers how do you know or observe that it's pre-programmed?

 

[marplots]

DNA contains the Instructions/Blueprint for LIFE and all of it's processes.

Is DNA alive?

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

This is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

Let's keep focused on the fact that I am trying to establish some common ground, from which we (you and I) can have a rational, meaningful discussion of "Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit".

…except that’s not my argument.

Sure.

But we are not discussing your "argument", my argument, or anyone else's. What we - or at least I - are trying to do is establish a common basis from which we can then have a rational, meaningful discussion.

My argument simply acknowledges the facts as they are known and the implications as they can be reasonably extrapolated. If you’re going to insist on childish clichés then I’m not going to bother.

I'm not "insisting" on anything, merely trying to find a common basis for a rational discussion.

It is also worth noting that there is much about science that is itself not scientific. Meaning, that summarily dismissing those other issues effectively emasculates science itself. But I’ll leave that aside for the moment.

And I will do.

Except to note that I really do not understand why you felt it necessary to write that, given that (I thought) we were merely trying to establish a common basis for a rational discussion ...

Do you have any concerns/difficulties/whatever with the negation of "Science explains" (i.e. "Science cannot explain X")? If so, please say what they are, in as concise and clear a fashion as you can.

Science cannot explain ‘X’. Why are you bringing this up?

Because it's the first part of the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy.

And (I thought) we were trying to establish a common basis for a rational discussion of this logical fallacy.

Moving on ... "therefore goddidit": By definition, goddidit is not part of science. That makes this part of the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy about the logic. An alternative to "therefore" is "it is indisputable that", or "(goddidit) follows as the only logical consequence/conclusion" (there are quite a few other ways to express this). Are you OK with this? If not, if not please say, as clearly as you can, what parts you do not agree with.

Science is not a part of science.

And how is this relevant?

You may think this is academic, but in this case it is not. Each ‘gap’ has to be considered on its own. Ultimately, the argument is very simple.
<snip>

Likewise, how is this relevant?

To repeat, I thought we were trying to establish a common basis for a rational discussion of this logical fallacy ('god of the gaps').

I'll see what you have to say, in response to this post of mine; however, I think it's clear (to me anyway) that you and I have little chance to agree on a common basis, from which to start a rational discussion of the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy ("Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit").

I'll reply to your other comments, re information, in a separate post.

 

[annnnoid]

....a rational discussion of the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy ("Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit").

...for some reason I failed to notice this (forest...trees...that kind of thing). My bad. I'll review and begin again. Busy right now though so back later.

 

[RussDill]

"Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used."
Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990.

Another quote mine from popular with creationists Internet-wide, shocker. I'm going to guess that microbiology is not your specialty, so let me try and explain. Not all antibiotics work on all strains of bacteria. Most don't work on entire classes of bacteria. You'll note that for clindamycin, 'Most aerobic Gram-negative bacteria are resistant to clindamycin', so finding bacteria such bacteria is expected. Additionally, the antibiotics you listed are derivatives of natural antibiotics, meaning they've been around a very, very long time. They were not "invented".

And as is common in your quote mining, you pick quotes from articles that not only do you not have access to, but I think for which you hope no one else has access to. And as often, the citation has been munged, either intentionally or not. The title does not match with the quote, "Ancient Bacteria Revived" would not mean 150 years, and I have found a series of articles from 1974 with bacteria being revived from coring that was 10,000 years old. The fact that none of the online sources for this quote get the citation right, and all get it wrong in the exact same way, lead me to believe that not only are they all sourcing from the same original quote miner, but that not a single one of them has actually bothered to check if the quote is accurate.

Searching on the scientist's name in the article yields a series of articles from 1988 with a headline that makes more sense, "Corpses yield drug-resistant bacteria predating antibiotics". The article is actually from a scientist who believes that heavy metal pollutants alone lead to antibiotic resistant strains, this has since been shown to be false. You'll also note that the article states, "were found to be partly, but not completely resistant". All the articles I can find also only list that two such strains were found, not that it makes a difference. This is also a great finish to the article:

Some tissues also contained streptococcal bacteria, but those were identified as modern bacteria, probably from members of Beattie's team who accidentally sneezed on the bodies, she added"

 

[Daniel]

Hang on...if there are no knowers or observers how do you know or observe that it's pre-programmed?

Because DNA is a "CODE" and atoms/molecules don't program themselves.

It's the same way when I download or use Software on my computer, I never question whether the display/keyboard/motherboard/chips ect conspired then constructed the CODE in lieu of a Programmer.

regards

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

"Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory" is the WP article I earlier said I'd provide a link to; here's the link. I like this because not only does it presents a case that "information" in the two are equivalent but also has a lot of references which anyone can explore to learn more about this.

annnnoid, what is the meaning of "information" in the part of your post I quoted? If it is not equivalent to how it is defined in either thermodynamics or information theory, would you please explain - as clearly and in as much detail as you can - just what you mean by the term?

Information is that which is processed by the conscious intelligence that generated those theories.

That's it?

So a conscious intelligence which generated something else (theory or not) did not process any information?

The people - with "conscious intelligence" - who did not generate "those theories" did not, and have never, processes (processed) any information?

Seems to me to be an astonishingly narrow definition!

Information is meaning.

And what is "meaning"?

It would also seem to occur in some kind of fundamental form as the basis of reality. That the theories (meaning) are a direct result of a reality that itself seems to be meaning at the very least suggests something fundamentally relevant. So far no one can establish what that is.

I can certainly agree that you have stated this ("So far no one can establish what that is"). And I guess I could agree that you, annnnoid, cannot establish "what that is".

As to whether anyone else can (or can't) ... well, I for one have really no idea what you're talking about, so I certainly can't.

And if this is intended to be (part of) your definition of information, all I can say is that it seems vague to the point of meaninglessness, and of no help whatsoever, in terms of actually doing any science.

Daniels definition of information I think is a response to QM. In that sense, it is perfectly reasonable. I would adjust my definition accordingly except I am not that familiar with QM. I guess mine is a more classical definition.

<snip>

I'm glad that you think you have some understanding of how information is defined in Danielscience.

To me, neither your definition nor his has anything more than a purely coincidental relationship to how the term information is used in thermodynamics and information theory. That alone renders moot essentially anything and everything either of you have said (written), when referencing material from published papers (etc).

And also pretty much eliminates any chance of being able to have a rational, science-based discussion of "DNA and information" (which happens to be the central to this thread). If only because I (at least) cannot grasp what you mean by information.

Would you like to try again? Please keep in mind that this is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of ISF, not the Philosophy one.

Anyone else?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because DNA is a "CODE" and atoms/molecules don't program themselves.

It's the same way when I download or use Software on my computer, I never question whether the display/keyboard/motherboard/chips ect conspired then constructed the CODE in lieu of a Programmer.

regards

So its a hunch?

Daniel I'd honestly love to understand what you believe and engage with it but however many pages later i'm none the wiser.

 

[RussDill]

DNA contains the Instructions/Blueprint for LIFE and all of it's processes.

The Information "CODE" is Pre-Programmed. There are no "Knowers"/Observers in my CPU...but it processes a boatload of Information and Instructions each day.

regards

So I have this quote "Information -- that which Informs or Instructs, the basis of all communication".

If DNA contains information, who is it informing or instructing?

 

[Daniel]

Is DNA alive?

Nope. The same way Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules aren't 'alive', but we still retrieve information from books.

regards

 

[JeanTate]

Hang on...if there are no knowers or observers how do you know or observe that it's pre-programmed?

Because DNA is a "CODE" and atoms/molecules don't program themselves.

<snip>

This is just too good to ignore.

Of course atoms and molecules "program themselves"!

How does crystalline ice form when water is frozen? What is fractional crystallization but atoms/molecules programming themselves (well, it's more than that, but includes it)? How does the boundary between liquid and gas disappear when a substance reaches its a certain temperature/density state?

Etc.

Methinks Daniel is using "program" in a rather, um, idiosyncratic way ...

 

[Daniel]

So I have this quote "Information -- that which Informs or Instructs, the basis of all communication".

If DNA contains information, who is it informing or instructing?

"What" is it Informing/Instructing/Directing to be precise. Hundreds to thousands of Protein Robots in each cell (SEE: Transcription/Translation).

regards

 

[JeanTate]

"What" is it Informing/Instructing/Directing to be precise. Hundreds to thousands of Protein Robots in each cell (SEE: Transcription/Translation).

regards

Just like how a seed crystal instructs/directs/informs millions of atom (or molecule) robots in each cell (containing a saturated solution, or a liquid being cooled, or ...)!

Danielscience certainly is fun ...

 

[RussDill]

"What" is it Informing/Instructing/Directing to be precise. Hundreds to thousands of Protein Robots in each cell (SEE: Transcription/Translation).

regards

So then intelligent agency is not necessary component of the definition of information, just stupid unthinking atoms.

 

[Daniel]

This is just too good to ignore.

You should have.

Of course atoms and molecules "program themselves"!

So the Declaration of Independence, War and Peace, ect... reveal the Emergent Properties of Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules?

How does crystalline ice form when water is frozen? What is fractional crystallization but atoms/molecules programming themselves (well, it's more than that, but includes it)? How does the boundary between liquid and gas disappear when a substance reaches its a certain temperature/density state?

Etc.

"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."
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

Is there something that is 'Unclear' about..."Nothing in the Physico-Chemical World that remotely resembles...??"

I've also explained Ad Nauseam on this thread (and to you personally more than once): "Ice Crystals", "Fractals", and "Phase Transitions" don't contain/create CODE, for goodness sakes.

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES.”
I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants.,: Thermodynamics of Evolution; Physics Today 25(11): p. 23 (1972).


regards

 

[Daniel]

So then intelligent agency is not necessary component of the definition of information, just stupid unthinking atoms.

Yes, just like your computer hardware and software are emergent properties of: Silicon, Copper, and Plastic.

regards

 

[JeanTate]

You should have.




So the Declaration of Independence, War and Peace, ect... reveal the Emergent Properties of Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules?





"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."
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

Is there something that is 'Unclear' about..."Nothing in the Physico-Chemical World that remotely resembles...??"

I've also explained Ad Nauseam on this thread (and to you personally more than once): "Ice Crystals", "Fractals", and "Phase Transitions" don't contain/create CODE, for goodness sakes.

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES.”
I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants.,: Thermodynamics of Evolution; Physics Today 25(11): p. 23 (1972).


regards

Thanks Daniel.

I think I'm beginning to understand something about Danielscience, and will attempt to apply my understanding by doing a tiny piece of research using Danielscience techniques, in a later post.

Stay tuned.

 

[RussDill]

Yes, just like your computer hardware and software are emergent properties of: Silicon, Copper, and Plastic.

regards

Beautiful, then it's agreed, information can come about through natural processes.

 

[Reality Check]

DNA contains the Instructions/Blueprint for LIFE and all of it's processes.

Obviously wrong, Daniel: cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A), or thymine (T do not Spell LIFE .

Of course the idiocy of comparing DNA to program code is even more obvious to someone who knows about DNA and programs. Programs

• Are not mostly junk
• Do not contain evidence of evolution.
• Are run on a computer not a living being.
• Do not mutate except in special circumstances when they include error checking routines that DNA lacks.
• Are known to be designed (e.g. by me!).