The great information debate

[Lincoln]

The cell is the result of a code that was set up by an intelligent being. The proof is in the code and the translation and the result of that translation. And the north pole thing is irrelevant.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You did not even mention CODED information that has a logical order to translation.

Tree rings are encoded by the Creator so that trees and humans alike can find out the ages of trees that have been cut down.

Tree rings etc. is not analogous to coded information.

Why not? There's logical order to why a tree adds rings, is there not? It requires an intelligent observer to understand this translation process ("count the rings, find out the age of the tree!"), does it not? How, then, are tree rings not analogous to DNA, which also requires an intelligent observer to understand its translation process?

There is a meaning to the cell. A specific order of nucleotides translates into a specific amino acid.

There is order to the tree rings. Count the number of rings, find out the age of the tree. The tree isn't going to try to obfuscate you by adding multiple rings in a single year or by skipping years--it's just as orderly as DNA, and much more easily understood by an observer.

[MrBaggins]

LOLOL... but no Intelligent being is required. Data can have entirely non-intelligent sources (random permutations). You are just providing an answer searching for a question.

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln... btw stop avoiding the issue regarding pragmatics... you can't unwrite what you said... well... maybe you can... but that also... would be forfeit.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The cell is the result of a code that was set up by an intelligent being. The proof is in the code and the translation and the result of that translation. And the north pole thing is irrelevant.

Translation of the meeting of a North and South pole isn't good enough? (Bill and Herbert will be most displeased!) You want another analogy of non-intelligent translation? Okay, if I mix zinc and hydrochloric acid I'll make zinc chloride and hydrogen gas. This is merely the result of translating the code Zn+2HCl -> ZnCl + H2 (not exactly sure on the balancing there) into practical reality.

Take a DNA molecule, add the correct materials (a bunch of water, energy, and organic molecules, I don't know which ones or how many), and bam, you've made two identical DNA molecules (so long as there are no errors in translation, something which quite likely given the complexity of the DNA molecule). It's called chemistry.

[Lincoln]

"There is order to the tree rings. Count the number of rings, find out the age of the tree. The tree isn't going to try to obfuscate you by adding multiple rings in a single year or by skipping years--it's just as orderly as DNA, and much more easily understood by an observer."

There is no coded language in tree rings that is analagous to the DNA "language" that is composed of triplets made up of 4 letters -- That is in turn translated into one of twenty amino acids -- that in turn is combined with others and in turn folded precisely. You are talking about order not information. But like you said there needs to be an inteligent source before true information can exist.

[MrBaggins]

Correct... its a useless analogy... tree rings are not data used in processes... we can just ignore the analogy.

Now... Lincoln how many posts are you going to go ignoring the pragmatics issue?

[Lincoln]

The pragmatics issue was settled about 6 or 7 pages ago. What is your point now?

[Lincoln]

Anyway since we are on the subject of pragmatics I am going to bed. night all . . .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There is no coded language in tree rings that is analagous to the DNA "language" that is composed of triplets made up of 4 letters -- That is in turn translated into one of twenty amino acids -- that in turn is combined with others and in turn folded precisely.

Basically, all this means is that DNA is more complex than counting rings on a tree. However, I never said that the "information" in tree rings is as complex as the "information" in DNA. Substantively (not taking complexity into account), the two are identical. Both are absolutely meaningless as "information" without an intelligent receiver, and are therefore not information to their respective superstructures (the tree can't count its own rings, the cell can't understand its own DNA). They're just structures, nothing more.

You are talking about order not information.

I'm talking about two substantively equivalent pieces of data. A tree can't understand tree rings, a cell can't understand DNA. There is no receiver to either piece of data, therefore both pieces of data fail to qualify as information.

But like you said there needs to be an inteligent source before true information can exist.

My reference to the Creator was facetious, as demonstrated by the fact that I said that the Creator made tree rings so that trees could find out the ages of other trees.

[MrBaggins]

You said in response to this post by me.

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually... DNA doesn't fit YOUR definition of information

4. Pragmatics.

This is the practical level. What does this actually do? Answer; It makes specific proteins. The whole idea of the code is to actually do something practical which is the making of specific proteins with a specific function that perform specific tasks that are useful in the organism. DNA when translated by the ribosomes and the accompanying machinery actually produces the desired product. Information to be useful must actually do something. The information contained in DNA actually works and has a practical value.

DNA does nothing... it is used by a dumb process

the following...

Originally posted by Lincoln
"DNA does nothing... it is used by a dumb process"

Well you are finally getting the point. Which brings us to the topic. That is the source of information contained in DNA. Just like a computer program is a "dumb process" it has as its source an intelligent being that is capable of making value judgments. Call that information "data" or "bits" or whatever it is still operating as a result of intelligent input. DNA is not intelligent. I never said it was. If you are saying that it contains dumb data then you are correct if you understand the source of that data.

This is agreement to the fact that a) it does nothing; its dumb hence has no action, ergo is not information, as defined by your pragmatics... b) you say I am correct in saying that it contains dumb data.

You have said DNA is data two ways here.. your only arguement is that it some how 'REQUIRES' original intelligent design. Which it doesn't.

If it was information... it might require... but data has far lower standards... radioactive elements 'provide' data. Random chemical interactions provide data (in the form of permutations, like... oh... random DNA or its randomized constituent parts)


And before you try and twist the meaning...

"Data is Data is Data"

Data is not information unless it is processed. Irrespective of the origin.

[Lincoln]

Talk about semantic tricks MrBaggins. You seem to be trying to avoid the obvious by playing games with definitions and word parsing.

DNA does contain "dumb data". There is no magic involved in its random formation nor is their an intelligent source required when that data is being processed. I never said differently. So does a computer which has been programmed by an intelligent being contain “dumb data” and the processing precedes (usually) without intelligent input. So why do you find it necessary to continually evade the obvious?

“The point” which I thought you were finally getting (which I think you understand clearly in spite of your evasion) is that an intelligent being is required for true information to exist whether it is in the form of “dumb data”, chemical bonds or audible speech or the exchange of e-mails by two living intelligent beings.

This entire forum is made up of “dumb data” but it is obvious proof that intelligent agents are behind the data. This forum is also full of information yet you would for some reason evade that issue.

Now let’s discuss exactly what the “dumb data” in DNA is doing:

A. It is sitting there full of information just like a book sitting on a shelf, unread, contains information. The reason that even the unread book contains information is because the coded language that is contained in the book has been broken and it has been proved to contain real information. The book is therefore prima facie evidence of intelligent life. Now there is no reason to go into the philosophical argument about a tree falling in the woods with no one around to see it. If that is where you are anyone else is going then you are on the wrong thread.

The data in DNA is in coded form. The code has been broken. AUG means Methionine. UGG means Tryptophan. And the other available triplets made up of the for base letters ((ACUG) all have real meanings. Even when the DNA is in a dead organism it has meaning and it contains information. AUG means Methionine just like “boy” means young man. The code in DNA has meaning to both us and to the machinery in the cell.

B. DNA in a living organism is translated. The formation of the letters b,o,y have no meaning until meaning is assigned to them by both the sender and receiver. The letters UGG have meaning when the triplet is translated. There is agreement between the sender and receiver.

C. DNA has information within it that makes things when it is translated and put to work. An instruction book has real practical value when it is read and the instructions are followed by a builder. Those instructions may be entered into a machine and the machine can follow them and also make things. DNA instructions are read by mRNA and translated using tRNA and rRNA where it is formed into a viable product that has a specific function in building, maintaining, regulating or reproducing the organism. DNA is proved to be a coded language because of its practical value. It has the same practical value as an instruction book has. It contains information.

D. The information contained in DNA has a purpose or goal [apobetics]. Even in a seed the DNA contains the instructions that will make an apple tree or whatever. When those instructions are read by mRNA and put to work with the rest of the biological machinery then an apple tree is inevitable. It will not become instead a frog or a prince. The specified order of DNA produces specified results. There is a goal even if the purpose is not achieved (through accident etc.).

So we have all of the key ingredients of information contained in DNA. 1. Statistics. 2. Syntax. 3. Semantics. 4. Pragmatics. 5. Apobetics.

Whether living or dead, DNA contains information. The code is broken by us as observers and it is broken and used by the machinery of the cell and the accompanying organism. Please no more parsing of the English language for evasive purposes.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The topic is the SOURCE of information. Yes, chemical laws use it but that does not explain the source.

The source is the environment.


This part of the disscussion looks like a chat log.

Mr. Baggins is spreading connected statement over several posts. I am beginning to wonder if he is trying to get up to the 500 post limit before anyone says anything of note.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Goingonit
ALL DNA DOES IS CAUSE REACTIONS TO OCCUR BY VIRTUE OF ELECTRICAL CHARGES!

You know that and I know that even they know that. Lincoln and Baggins both seem to be in denial about the discussion actualy going somewhere. They don't even want anyone discussing it till the they get to one plus one.

You would think the were writing Principia Mathematica from first principals and couldn't decide if they want Modus Ponens or Modus Tolens as a starting point.

Whithead and Russell failed to do what they tried folks. GET ON WITH IT.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The sender and receiver set up the code and establish the information. DNA and the translation is the result of that input, and the process is a test of that input. It passes the test.

The sender is a string of DNA. The reciever is a ribosome. There is only data being transmited. The sender is not inteligent nor is any needed.

Gaining information is not the same as originating it. Information can be contained in water or just about anything. The problem is the source not the vehicle that carries it. The existance of DNA and the logical translation of that information is the test of the intelligent source that is behind it.

Only if you consider a molecule to be inteligent. This is the reason people are saying DNA is date not information. You are trying to define data as a sign of god.

This is only a test... I do not claim that intelligent life is manipulating the process once the information is entered into the program.

The information came from the evironment. It was never entered. It was pruned.