Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

And that’s where you are wrong. Information is not ONLY chemical, it also exists at a higher level.

​

Do you consider a hand to be ONLY CHEMICAL? Should teachers tell their students, Children, if you have to use the bathroom, just raise your chemicals? Heck, students themselves are only chemicals, aren’t they, so maybe you want teachers to say, Chemicals, if you have to use the bathroom, just raise your chemicals? Well heck, a bathroom is "only chemicals" too, so maybe you want teachers to say, "Chemicals, if you have to use the chemicals, just raise your chemicals"? Sounds like the chemical Smurfs.

---

I thought you said you understood the concept of emergent
properties?Just because the functions of the cell are chemical in nature,
does not mean that the whole is not greater than
the sum of the parts.This is, basically, the crux of my position.The cell is a vastly complex chemical 'reactor'. The emergent
property of this array of chemical activity is the cell.That doesn't require information -- so the existence of a
specific cell is not support for DNA containing information.

quote:

---

From a purely energy standpoint you might be right...I don't think it matters as you are overlooking a key part of the equation.

​

How do cells maintain their high degree of order and complexity? This is a VERY SPECIFIC, YET HIGHLY IMPROBABLE state - one that is very much thermodynamically unfavorable.

---

Given any specific arrangement of cellular contents (including
the DNA) the result is not improbable ... it is a consequence
of the chemical interactions.If you are considering jumbling those contents, then you are
shifting to consideration of HOW those contents got the way
they are, rather than consideration of some 'information'
content.

quote:

---

Mere energy and chemistry alone are not sufficient to make one of our cells...it takes control too, which is where the information comes in.

---

I take this to mean that you consider the process to be one in
which the DNA sequence 'directs' the cell. That is, that the
DNA sequences are analogous to a computer program.This is not like the physics concept of information.The 'control' aspect comes from the set of chemicals and energetic
environment within the cell (and inputs from outside the cell).They react the way they do, because they are chemicals, and that's
what chemicals do, not because the DNA sequences 'tells' the cell
what to do any more than a catalysts 'tells' a set of chemicals
to react with one another.If that's not what you mean by 'control' of a cell, or of the
kind of information required, please elaborate.

Is there a glossary in that book that defines
'information', 'genetic information', or any such?Or a section in a chapter that does the same.If there isn't, then we cannot know that the term in not
being used in the informal, common understanding sense.If there is, it may illuminate more to show that, than to
show the section where the term is used.

quote:

---

No definition

---

Which is why I have previously stated that the continual reposting
of sections containing the word are not helpful in this
discussion.Even in the genetic information description that you provided
there is no indication that the term 'information' itself
is being used in anything other than a metaphorical sense.DNA sequences can be viewed as though they contained information,
is a very different statement.

You seem highly hooked on the fact that people often
use the term 'information' in connection with
DNA sequences, and completely avoid the question of whether
that term is used to mean something very precise, or
informally as in common language.That is different you know.The latest quote is highly unhelpful.It says that a gene is a DNA sequence that contains information
and you are using that to say that DNA contains information.i.e. using someone's definition that doesn't include what they
mean by information in the first place.I'll lay out one of my objections to using 'information' in regard
to DNA in anything but a metaphorical sense.If DNA doesn't contain information, there is no question about
where that information came from (regardless of defintion).If DNA objectively contains information then one can aske
where did it come from and in what way can it be changed?The latter makes no sense wrt DNA, since DNA is governed by
the same physical principles that govern all of chemistry.Just because they are highly complex in the interaction sense
does not mean there is any information (in any specified, controlling, algorithmic sense).DNA processes do not match any IS models, so no IS/data processing
definitions of information are relevant.That leaves the physics definition (which I have already agreed
is OK) that simply says that everything contains 'physics' information.They are NOT the same concept, and shouldn't be confused.

I'll try again ....If there is no specific definition of information
for this text, one must assume a common-language
usage, not a technical one.Using 'information' as a descriptive, metaphorical way
of explaining DNA in organisms is a far cry from claiming
that there is any information (in any technical sense) there.Even if you want to use the 'information is a measure of
order' approach you run into problems.DNA (as a chemical) shows order (the same as any other chemical).A chain of DNA does not. ANY sequence of bases is possible
hence there is no specific 'order' involved.The processing, within the cell, from DNA to protein shows
'order' in this structural/deterministic kind of way.If that's all you mean, OK. I already said that.IF on the other hand, you are trying to claim that cells are
programmed to do what they do, and that the DNA sequences
are more like machine code ... that's where I disagree.

I have no problem using the analogy ... so long as
one remembers that it IS an analogy and not a formal/accurate
description of the system in question.Even then it's not the DNA sequence alone ... the DNA
sequence is more like the data tables that a program
might use.[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-18-2004]

The first is definitely an informal use of the term
information, and means something like 'order'. I've already
said that that, highly restricted definition, fits OK.The second is an extremely loose usage, and not to be confused
with any analysis that has concluded this.The distinction between who is the IDer is, well, trite in my
opinion. If an ETI seeded the earth ... where did they come
from ... or where the ETI's the product of random mutation
and selection.Ultimately any argument that intelligence is REQUIRED for
life to exist hits a limit where a god is also required.

quote:

---

Uhm, there are reasons to think that mutations aren’t truly random: for example, genomes can have hotspots where mutations occur at a higher rate. In such genomes, because the mutations are not evenly distributed, technically, they are not random. There are plenty of debates at sites such as this one that are based on what the word random really means and I didn’t want to get bogged down in such.

---

Are you sure you're not Peter Borger You don't need even distribution (spatially) for the mutations
to be random ... I agree that we shouldn't get borged down
on this one ... but it's hardly compelling.

program/data distintion is quite straight forward ....data doesn't perform any operations, program does.I agree though -- any analogy can be useful so long as it
is relevent.

quote:

---

And yet you responded as if I were wrong!?!?

---

On a grammatical point it should read:
'And yet you responded as if I was wrong'unless, of course, the possibility of you being wrong
is zero. What's the matter, can't you write or something ... oh and I responded because you ARE wrong, just didn't want
to get sidetracked -- but couldn't leave it for you to think
people agreed with you.

quote:

---

Peter: You don't need even distribution (spatially) for the mutations to be random ...

​

DNA asks:
Why are you addressing a statement I didn't make?

​

DNA wrote:-
In such genomes, because the mutations are not evenly distributed, technically, they are not random.

---

Didn't you write that?Everything else you posted is irrelevent because:ANY location on a DNA strand CAN suffer a mutation.
Hotspots don't always suffer mutations.I have a suggestion for you, before you post any more quotations
consider whether they add or subtract from the message you
are giving, and whether they support your position or not.

I think Ooook asked your opinion on the origin or
information in THE common ancestor (i.e. the
first ever 'This is definitely life' cell).So you are avoiding the question ... besides you KNOW
what is being asked so failing to provide an answer
(even if that answer is 'I don't want to say.') is
reprehensible.