Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   coded information in DNA
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 46 of 334 (510109)
05-27-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2009 4:47 PM


Not only that, the special pleading is equivalent to saying that you can only prove that not all american presidents are white if you can find a non-white president except for Obama.
Do catholics count?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2009 4:47 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5393 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 47 of 334 (510342)
05-30-2009 7:00 AM


Hey guys, sorry for the delay....
mark24 writes:
Nope, it could have evolved.
The problem with that is that for anything to evolve according to Darwinian evolution it must be able to reproduce to make copies of itself. John Von Neumann determined almost 50 years ago that any self-replicating machine must first have a code to represent the structure to be built. Without a code, there is no evolution.
No code, equals no replication, which equals nothing to select, which equals no evolution. 'Evolution" is a non-answer to the origin of life question.
Hey onifre,
Now, wouldn't you agree that nucleosynthesis, which is how these elements come to exist, fits quite well within your definition of coded information?
I'm afraid not. Please remember the original definition. "Coded information = a system of symbols used by an encoding / decoding mechanism that transmits a message which is seperate from the communication medium itself."
Hi Dr,
Well, we can watch mutations producing new information.
The evolution of codes does not in any way explain the origin of them.
Hi RAZD,
The same way we account for the coded symbolic information in H20, atoms, salt crystals, and snowflake..."
They contain no coded information, only information of themselves. You can have a box of square wooden blocks, and if you tilt the box towards one corner and shake it, they will naturally line up in lattices. But none of those blocks contains instructions to assemble a lattice. They're just blocks.
Likewise, the edges of crystals are boundaries, but they are not codes. Whatever molecule is next to a boundary is next to a boundary, but there is no symbolic relationship. A water molecule all by itself contains no plan or instructions to build a specific structure or a particular molecule, but DNA does.
There are no DNA molecules that do not follow these basic patterns of combination.
Correct, but just because a process obeys known scientific laws does not mean the coded information is derivable from those laws. Computer programs for example. The operation of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the origin of codes is not. The molecule itself is the medium, the ordering of the base pairs defines the code. The question that naturalism can’t answer is where the code came from.
Hi Michamus,
We have already demonstrated that the Genetic Code is no more special a molecule than water.
Please see above responses.
Hi Mr Jack,
If I take a cube of ice and then hit it with a hammer, is there more or less information afterwards?
It never had coded information as has been defined...." a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of communication medium."
Anyway, gotta run for now guys. Peace.
For the correct understanding of this argument, see here. He's advanced it over at infidels for 3 years and counting.
Information Theory and DNA
"The Atheist's Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
For Three Years and counting, I have successfully advanced the Information Theory argument for Intelligent Design on Infidels, the world’s largest Atheist discussion forum."

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 7:50 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 05-30-2009 8:34 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 50 by Dr Jack, posted 05-30-2009 8:51 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 48 of 334 (510347)
05-30-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 7:00 AM


WordBeLogos writes:
'Evolution" is a non-answer to the origin of life question.
I think we probably all agree about this. Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life.
The problem with that is that for anything to evolve according to Darwinian evolution it must be able to reproduce to make copies of itself. John Von Neumann determined almost 50 years ago that any self-replicating machine must first have a code to represent the structure to be built. Without a code, there is no evolution.
You've misunderstood what people have been saying. No one has been saying that DNA isn't a code. What they've been telling you is that nearly everything is a code. Please see my Message 40.
"Coded information = a system of symbols used by an encoding / decoding mechanism that transmits a message which is seperate from the communication medium itself."
I just rebutted this in my Message 40. The crux of the matter is that your definition is crafted for the digital information age, and it can be misinterpreted to exclude non-symbolic codes. Symbols are not required for a code. Symbols are just an easy way to describe a code. As I point out in Message 40, your wireless router codes information into 0's and 1's, but AM radio codes information though continuous and non-symbolic amplitude modulation, and anything that emits or reflects light is communicating information about itself in codes. The deciphering of these natural codes to derive general laws is called science.
They contain no coded information, only information of themselves. You can have a box of square wooden blocks, and if you tilt the box towards one corner and shake it, they will naturally line up in lattices. But none of those blocks contains instructions to assemble a lattice. They're just blocks.
Now you're getting confused about just what comprises a code. A code is not something that "contains instructions," although some codes do. A code is simply a systematic representation of information. When scientists point their telescopes at distant galaxies they translate the information in the detected radio signals into some other form, maybe notations in a lab book or, more likely today, digital bits on a spinning disk. Those radio signals contain coded information. The scientists certainly didn't create the information. Without the information encoded in those radio signals they'd just be making it up.
The question that naturalism can’t answer is where the code came from.
Long ago in cave man days a witch doctor said, "Naturalism can't tell us where lightning comes from." Og spoke up and said, "Just because we don't know where lightning comes from today doesn't mean we'll never figure it out. Maybe the gods don't cause lightning, similar to other things we've figured out the gods didn't do." That night the witch doctor had Og for dinner in his cave.
In other words, claims of what naturalism can't explain have been in constant retreat since the beginning of time. Regarding the origin of the DNA code, maybe we'll figure it out, maybe we won't. Certainly there's not much evidence left after several billion years, so even if we figure out a way it might have happened, that won't mean we've found the way that it actually did happen. But your argument has not had a single success so far. Not a single scientific mystery has ever been resolved in favor of the supernatural.
For the correct understanding of this argument, see here. He's advanced it over at infidels for 3 years and counting.
Have you considered the possibility that Perry Marshall might be making overinflated and self-serving statements about his own successes? His thread over at the Free Thought and Rationalism discussion board ( Proof of god via DNA and evolution) doesn't reveal any greater success than you're experiencing here with the same arguments. In fact, the core of his strategy seems to be the same as your own: misdefine code, then insist the definition is correct no matter how often it is successfully rebutted.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 7:00 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 334 (510352)
05-30-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 7:00 AM


WordBeLogos,
The problem with that is that for anything to evolve according to Darwinian evolution it must be able to reproduce to make copies of itself. John Von Neumann determined almost 50 years ago that any self-replicating machine must first have a code to represent the structure to be built. Without a code, there is no evolution.
What about a self replicator with "no code", one that merely reproduces copies of itself? Essentially such a molecule would be the code, even if it coded for nothing more than itself initially with errors, of course.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 7:00 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 50 of 334 (510359)
05-30-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 7:00 AM


It never had coded information as has been defined...." a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of communication medium."
That's why I asked you about Shannon information. Shannon information is not equivalent to the definition your talking about, so you can't invoke it to help your argument. Shannon information is, essentially, the minimum amount of data required to represent an object. Shannon information is interesting, because it is tied to the second law of thermodynamics; and it's also increased by smashing an ice cube.
So, now, you've accepted that Shannon information has nothing to do with what your're talking about, let's investigate your ideas a bit further.
According to your notion of information, is there more information is a single strand of DNA, or in that DNA and a copy of it? How about nucleotide sequence CGACGACGA, does it contain more or less information than the the sequence CGACGA? How do we compare the information content of the sequence CGACGA and the sequence CGATGA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 7:00 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5393 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 51 of 334 (510370)
05-30-2009 1:03 PM


Gentlemen,
As has been said, we must agree on the definition of coded information.
"How do you define information?
Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
A: The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."
From Wikipedia:
Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.
This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.
information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.
What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.
It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.
A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.
All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.
Q: But information CAN arise naturally - the gravitational constant, Pi, the speed of light, or strings of molecules like C 7 H 5 NO 4 (Benzine).
A: None of these things contain coded information (see above for definition of information). Gravity is gravity. It is a force. But it contains no code or symbols. When we measure it and quantify it (or even speak of it) we assign code and symbols so we can understand it, but in and of itself, it contains no information.
Pi is a relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumfrence. The number 3.14159 is a way of expressing Pi, based on a human-designed encoding/decoding system (numbers, base ten) but the relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumfrence itself is not coded information. The same can be said of the speed of light. The speed of light is the speed of light, it represents nothing other than itself.
A molecule, such as Benzine, is just a molecule. When we describe it with symbols like C 7 H 5 NO 4 we are using an encoding / decoding mechanism to describe it, but Benzine itself contains no code, and it is not an encoding / decoding mechanism. It represents nothing other than itself. Information is different from benzine because it represents something OTHER than itself.
If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information.
Q: DNA is not a code, DNA is just a molecule
A: Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information," emphasis mine:
"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."
The following quotes are from atheist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker:
"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
"Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together."
Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.
No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.
DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism."
Would we all agree with the above then??

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 2:04 PM WordBeLogos has replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2009 2:59 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 75 by Ichneumon, posted 05-31-2009 6:26 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 78 by Ichneumon, posted 05-31-2009 7:01 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 52 of 334 (510374)
05-30-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 1:03 PM


You're repeating yourself. This here comes verbatim from your Message 18:
WordBeLogos writes:
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
By the way, Yockey is not "the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics." I don't know who, if anyone, would actually deserve that title, but it definitely is not Yockey.
From Wikipedia:
Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver...etc...
This isn't from Wikipedia. It's hard to tell where it actually originates, it appears verbatim at 10 different websites. If you check out the version at Fact-Archive you'll see that what you quote begins in the section Information as a message, and then without any hint that any text is missing picks up with the second sentence of the section Information as a pattern.
And there are three more sections describing information as sensory input, an influence, and as a property in physics that you completely ignored. Who do you think you're fooling? Making matters worse you make no attempt to indicate where the part you're quoting ends and your own words resume.
You need to pick a single definition of information rather than picking portions of different definitions that you happen to like. The only definition that makes sense in this context is Shannon information, because it is quantifiable.
What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of.
I've rebutted this bit about symbols being a required part of codes twice now, and this would be the third time except that I'm going to instead refer you to Message 40. You need to respond to the rebuttal and stop repeating yourself.
If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information.
They contained information before you arranged them in your driveway. Pick up one of the pebbles and look at it. The pebble has a color, a shape, a texture, a weight. Where did the information about these qualities come from? It didn't come from you, it came from the pebble. The color and shape were encoded as electromagnetic information reflected from the pebble to your eyes. The texture and weight came from its surface impinging directly on your fingers and hand.
Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information.
I've done this a number of times at this very website. See for example Message 81.
No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.
This couldn't be more wrong. All information ultimately originates in nature. I suggest you stop mixing and matching your definitions and instead begin with Shannon information. Then, consistently sticking with this one definition, try to make your case.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 1:03 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 5:58 PM Percy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 334 (510379)
05-30-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 1:03 PM


Having quoted Dawkins here, it's interesting to note that neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. For a very interesting and extensive read on this subject, read "The Problem of Information For The Theory of Evolution" by Royal Truman. If you carefully trace every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised here, nor provided any examples of materialistic processes that produce coded information.
But this is not true. This is why, when presented with observable examples of new information being produced, you have to pretend, contrary to the evidence, that they were produced by magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 1:03 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5393 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 54 of 334 (510388)
05-30-2009 5:54 PM


pmarshall writes:
It doesn't even matter how we define "codes" as long as we don't change definitions in mid syllogism."
"The definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not. Again, I define "Coded Information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
If there are pebbles below a rapids, there are pebbles below a rapids. There is no coded information associated with them - unless you measure their size, in which case you have created information to describe the pebbles, based on your chosen symbols and units of measurement. Same with orientation of sand dunes, layers of hailstone. Those objects represent only themselves; there is no encoding and decoding mechanism within these material objects, such as there is in DNA. If someone says the layers of a hailstone are an encoding mechanism, I reply that there is no convention of symbols, nor is there a decoding mechanism.
The information in DNA is independent of the communication medium insofar as every strand of DNA in your body represents a complete plan for your body; even though the DNA strand itself is only a sequence of symbols made up of chemicals (A, G, C, T). We could store a CAD drawing of a hard drive on the same model of hard drive, but the medium and the message are two distinctly different things. Such symbolic relationships only exist within the realm of living things; they do not occur naturally. As a result we observe that, so far as anyone knows, coded information only exists in the realm of conscious minds and living things; there is no purely materialistic explanation for its origin.
If you disagree, all you need is one example."
Now, before we go any further, can we agree with this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2009 6:04 PM WordBeLogos has replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5393 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 55 of 334 (510389)
05-30-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
05-30-2009 2:04 PM


Percy, I stand corrected, that was not from Wiki. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 2:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 7:11 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 334 (510390)
05-30-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 5:54 PM


It seems extremely tendentious. Especially the proposed dichotomy between "the realm of living things" and what "occurs naturally".
Living things do occur naturally. There's nothing more natural than biology.
Making this false distinction is the grossest form of petitio principii.
I might with more justification retort: coded information only occurs within the realm of living things, which occur naturally. Therefore there is no example of any coded information with a supernatural origin. If you disagree, all you need is one example.
I say "with more justification" because living things do occur naturally --- to deny it is to tear up the entire definition of the word "naturally".
For example, the coded information in my genes, which is unique to me, is a result of an entirely natural process --- my mother and father having sex. Do you deny this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 5:54 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 6:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5393 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 57 of 334 (510393)
05-30-2009 6:36 PM


Additional information from pmarshall,
pmarshall writes:
Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to have a productive discussion without a proper definition of terms. Since the extensive papers, dictionaries and mathematical definitions I have cited thus far have not been sufficient to persuade some in this forum that DNA is literally a code, I am happy to provide you with further support for my thesis, and more textbook definitions so that all can agree:
Quote:
The genetic code is a set of 64 base triplets (nucleotide bases, read in blocks of three). A codon is a base triplet in mRNA. Different combinations of codons specify the amino acid sequence of different polypeptide chains, start to finish.
-Cell Biology and Genetics, Starr and Taggart, Wadsworth Publishing, 1995
Genetic Code: The sequence of nucleotides, coded in triplets (codons) along the messenger RNA, that determines the sequence of amino acids in protein synthesis. The DNA sequence of a gene can be used to predict the mRNA sequence, and the genetic code can in turn be used to predict the amino acid sequence.
-50 years of DNA, Clayton and Dennis, Nature Publishing, 2003
The problem of how a sequence of four things (nucleotides) can determine a sequence of twenty things (amino acids) is known as the ‘coding’ problem.��? —Francis Crick
The unique mark of a living organism, shared with no other known entity, is its possession of a genetic program that specifies that organism’s chemical makeup. The program has two essential and related features: first, it is ‘read’ by the organism, and the instructions embodied therein expressed, second, it is replicated with high fidelity whenever the organism reproduces.DNA carries genetic specificity. This structure immediately suggests that genetic specificity, the information��? that distinguishes one gene from another, resides in the sequence of nucleotides.
Genetic information flows in linear fashion from the sequence of bases in DNA to that of amino acids in proteins. The parallel with letters and words is inescapable the quantity of information transmitted can be estimated with the aid of algorithms derived from wartime researches on the fidelity of communications.��?
The most compelling instance of biochemical unity is, of course, the genetic code. Not only is DNA the all but universal carrier of genetic information (with RNA viruses the sole exception), the table of correspondences that relates a particular triplet of nucleotides to a particular amino acid is universal. There are exceptions, but they are rare and do not challenge the rule.��?
-The Way of the Cell, Franklin M. Harold, Oxford University Press, 2001
A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.
In intercellular communication the domains and counterdomains are the signal molecules and their receptors, and the code is like the base-pair rules of the first-tier code of the DNA, a simple rule between pairs of molecules of matching surfaces.
Why There are no Double-Entendres in Biological Communication: The basic information for the encoding in intercellular communication (a high-class encoding complying with Shannon’s Second Theorem) is all concentrated in the interacting molecular surfaces. And this information is what makes the communications unambiguous. We can now define an unambiguous communication: a communication in which each incoming message or signal at a receiver (or retransmitter) stage is encoded in only one way; or, stated in terms of mapping, a communication in which there is a strict one to one mapping of domains, so that for every element in the signal domain there is only one element in the counterdomain.
The table in Figure 7.9 tells us at a glance that a given amino acid may have more than one coding triplet: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, for instance, are all synonyms for leucine. A code of this sort is said to be degenerate.��? That is OK despite the epithet, so long as the information flow goes in the convergent direction, as it normally does. The counterdomain here consists of only one element, and so a given triplet codes for no more than one amino acid. Thus, there is synonymity, but no ambiguity in the communications ruled by the genetic code.��?
-The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999
(George) Gamow devised a scheme, illustrated by means of playing cards, that involved sets of three adjacent nucleotides per amino acide unit (triplet��? code) in a sequence of overlapping triplets. That proposal spurred Francis Crick and his colleagues to examine the coding problem more critically and to use knowledge gained from genetic experiments to test the possible validity of Gamow’s scheme and its variants. By 1961 they had concluded that the nucleotides of each triplet did not belong to any other triplet (nonoverlapping��? code); that sets of triplets are arranged in continuous linear sequence starting at a fixed point on a polynucleotide chain, without breaks (commaless��? code), thus determining how a long sequence is to be read off as triplets; and that more than one triplet can code for a particular amino acid (degenerate��? code).
-Proteins, Enzymes, Genes: The Interplay of Chemistry and Biology, Joseph S. Fruton, Yale University Press 1999
The genome of any organism could from then on be understood in a detailed way undreamt of 20 years earlier. It had been revealed as the full complement of instructions embodied in a series of sets of three DNA nitrogenous bases. The totality of these long sequences were the instructions for the construction, maintenance, and functioning of every living cell. The genome was a dictionary of code words, now translated, that determined what the organism could do. It was the control center of the cell. Differences among organisms were the result of differences among parts of these genome sequences.��?
-The Human Genome Project: Cracking the Genetic Code of Life, by Thomas F. Lee, Plenum Press, 1991
The three-nucleotide, or triplet code, was widely adopted as a working hypothesis. Its existence, however, was not actually demonstrated until the code was finally broken
With a knowledge of the genetic code, we can turn our attention to the question of how the information encoded in the DNA and transcribed into mRNA is subsequently translated into a specific sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain. The answer to this question is now understood in great detail instructions for protein synthesis are encoded in sequences of nucleotides in the DNA molecule.��?
-Biology, 5th Edition, by Curtis & Barnes, Worth Publishers, 1989
If there’s still anyone who asserts that DNA is not a code, take up this issue with the authors and publishers of these books — Oxford University Press, Yale University Press, Francis Crick, George Gamow, etc. I have presented not only volumes of material evidence that DNA is a code, I have also provided proof based on formal mathematical definitions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 7:13 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5393 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 58 of 334 (510394)
05-30-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2009 6:04 PM


Hi Dr,
Living things do occur naturally. There's nothing more natural than biology.
Biological life, through coded information contained in DNA is the very thing in question. Is it the product of mindless "natural" prosess such as tornadoes and snowflakes etc., or the product of intelligence? If we knew this we would not be having this discussion right now.
Word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2009 6:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2009 5:17 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 334 (510398)
05-30-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 5:58 PM


WordBeLogos writes:
Percy, I stand corrected, that was not from Wiki. Thank you.
You were corrected on far more than a mere misattribution. Might we at some point expect a response about a) your picking and choosing of different parts of different definitions of information; b) your incorrect definition of codes; c) your misconceived example involving pebbles; d) my explanation of a natural origin for information in DNA; e) how nature is the ultimate source of all information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 5:58 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 8:34 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 60 of 334 (510399)
05-30-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by WordBeLogos
05-30-2009 6:36 PM


You're quoting Perry Marshall quoting a bunch of other sources. This is from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by WordBeLogos, posted 05-30-2009 6:36 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024