The great information debate

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
Apparently you missed the tail end of the last thread, where I pointed out that prions (protein fragments, not even full proteins) are capable of replication given the correct environment (specifically, one rich in organic molecules, like an organism or some good old primordial soup).

Prions don't so much replicate as catalyze the deformation of similar molecules. They appear to be not quite right proteins that cause the right versions to become the not quite right version which go on to do the same again. I wouldn't call it life. More like the vampires of the biochemical world.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
It does not say it is a life form,

You said yourself, "it depends on what definition you use for 'alive.'" IIRC, viruses are not considered to be "alive" either, but they replicate just like prions (although like prions they only replicate with the direct assistance of their environment).

You don't need to have DNA or RNA to have replication.

You can read it yourself, and it is not that long.

Thanks, I already know about them though. After all, I'm the one who brought them up.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Prions don't so much replicate as catalyze the deformation of similar molecules. They appear to be not quite right proteins that cause the right versions to become the not quite right version which go on to do the same again. I wouldn't call it life. More like the vampires of the biochemical world.

"Argument by mixing definitions." If prions make more prions, then they replicate. I already noted that they require the correct environment factors to do so.

By your example, cancer cells would not actually replicate since they are "not quite right cells." Sorry, that's not going to fly.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


"Argument by mixing definitions." If prions make more prions, then they replicate. I already noted that they require the correct environment factors to do so.

I didn't mix definitions. They modify rather than copy. If they were literly copying they would be taking parts and assembling them. Instead they change the form of a chemical that was produced by something else.

I will try saying it another way. They induce a single protein to become a replica rather than assemble a replica from parts. Assembly from parts is what people are usually talking about regarding a self-replicating molecule.

By your example, cancer cells would not actually replicate since they are "not quite right cells." Sorry, that's not going to fly.

They DO replicate. They make copies of themselves by assembling the needed parts. They divide just like normal cells except they just keep doing it when they are supposed to stop. Very much unlike prions which need something else to make the correct molecule and then the prion modifys it.

[Jack_www]

Lets not go too far off topic debating weather or not prions are alive or not. I dont see how you can say prions are alive though, they dont even reproduce themselves, and are formed form defective protiens made by cells.

Ok back to what we started talking about in this thread. Let say I write a program to make random changes in a several strings of charters. I have the program copy each string and have it change the string at a certain rate. Anything that does not make any sense I have the computer remove it, and let the other strings copy themselves. Any string that has meaning it is allowed to continue to copy. I let the computer do this for a very long time. Then write anther program to look at the strings to see if there is any meaning in the strings after this is done. After I write the programs and let the computers run on there own and I do not interrefer with them. Lets say it acutally produces a setence with meaning. Who was the one who set the system up? I did. Thus we can see that even though the computers did most of the work, the sentence they made does have an intelligent scource behind it.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I didn't mix definitions. They modify rather than copy. If they were literly copying they would be taking parts and assembling them. Instead they change the form of a chemical that was produced by something else.

I will try saying it another way. They induce a single protein to become a replica rather than assemble a replica from parts. Assembly from parts is what people are usually talking about regarding a self-replicating molecule.

Ah. Fair enough.

I wouldn't call it life either, I just wanted to throw it out there that Jack's statement "all life has DNA" is not indisputable.

Question on this sub-topic, however: Viruses are still not considered "life" for pretty much the same reasons that prions are not, correct? Or has this changed in recent years?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Let say I write a program...


Who was the one who set the system up? I did. Thus we can see that even though the computers did most of the work, the sentence they made does have an intelligent scource behind it.

Like I said a few posts ago, what you're arguing here is that God made chemistry. This concedes the point that evolution is a strictly biological and chemical process with no outside interference (no "hand of God" explicitely made the first DNA molecule, but rather the first DNA molecule was made as a result of a mindless chemical process), and only leaves the metaphysical question of "who or what caused the laws of physics to be just so at the beginning of the universe." In other words, if you're arguing for a one-to-one correspondence between the algorithm and chemistry, then you'd be arguing in favor of evolution.

[Jack_www]

In my post above I assume that something that has meaning can arise form such a process. Of course the only way to test it would be to acuatly do this with a computer. The question is can usefull information come form a random process, where the only thing that influences the devolopment of the information, is that anything that does not make sense is eliminated?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
Question on this sub-topic, however: Viruses are still not considered "life" for pretty much the same reasons that prions are not, correct? Or has this changed in recent years?

You would know about that than me I think. My idea of recent schooling is the during the Viet Nam War. Of course most of what I have learned of biology I learned after I dropped out of college.

I think viruses are at least sorta alive. They do reproduce but mostly they hijack the cells machinery to do it. They have a couple of enzymes to take controll of the cell, a shell and injection unit and the rest is mostly data. They don't move on their own. They don't ingest anything or excrete anything. I think I saw someone say they were only alive when they were in a host. I can go with that myself.

Puncuated life.

[Lincoln]

Here are a few quotes that I picked out that I think are relevant to the topic. Also, thanks everyone for generally sticking to the topic and making concise points.

“One however has never seen DNA made by anything nor humans make anything like DNA. In fact every object an intelligence tends to define seems to have some sort of beneficial utility function; one is hard pressed to see any utility in DNA that would benefit any intelligent organism.”

DNA indeed has utility that benefits an intelligent organism. How can you justify that statement? All of life’s instructions are in DNA including (as it appears) intelligence.

“Chemical laws are every bit as non-intelligent as that algorithm, which is why an intelligent source was not responsible for the creation of DNA (or any molecule, for that matter; if you argue that intelligence was required for the creation of DNA then to be consistent you'd need to also argue that intelligence was required for the creation of water, or coal, or hydrogen). If you're going to say that an intelligent source created chemistry . . .”

Have you ever heard of the concept called “Maxwell’s paradox” or Maxwell’s demon”? The “paradox” existed for about 50 years and it could not be solved by the application of chemical laws. It was finally solved by Leo Szilard by introducing the concept of information. Information science is the study of this. The discovery of DNA only amplified the importance of this field of science. It is entirely valid to explore this issue separately even though it is obviously intertwined with chemical laws and the laws of physics. The ubiquity of computers has also obviously brought this information science into the forefront.

“We've derived quite a bit of information from DNA. However, since everybody and their mother has argued this entire time that information requires an intelligent interpreter, DNA does not contain information until a sentient creature actually examines it. Until that time, DNA is nothing more than a molecule--it contains no more information than a molecule of water without something sentient examining it.”

No, the “examination” is done by the process of reading and translating and using the code to produce a viable product, i.e., a biological machine. Of course we as humans can now see this in action. It also contains far more ‘information’ than a molecule of water. The so called information contained in water also does not compare to that which exists in coded form in DNA. One is merely a record of the laws of physics the other is true information, or as MrBaggins says, meaningful information.

“Well like I was saying, the conception that information must be designed is based on circular reasoning.
What proves there is a God? DNA information.
What proves that DNA has to be created? The premise that it must come from an intelligent source i.e. God.
They think information must come from a designer, even though there is no observed designer for DNA, why? Because it must come from a designer, so even if a designer is not seen the designer must be there. Because He just must be.”

No, the concept that information must be designed is based upon experimentation, testing, and falsification. We started this thread with an example from MrBaggins and then we discussed the need for intelligent value judgments so that any ‘information’ could be real meaningful information. We have tested that some here. Can you refute it? We haven’t even got to God one way or the other. If the argument is circular then there would be no proof that can be tested. If you can falsify the argument thus far then do it now. Then if someone says that “God did it” you will have a point.

“Like I said a few posts ago, what you're arguing here is that God made chemistry. This concedes the point that evolution is a strictly biological and chemical process with no outside interference (no "hand of God" explicitely made the first DNA molecule, but rather the first DNA molecule was made as a result of a mindless chemical process), and only leaves the metaphysical question of "who or what caused the laws of physics to be just so at the beginning of the universe." In other words, if you're arguing for a one-to-one correspondence between the algorithm and chemistry, then you'd be arguing in favor of evolution.”

Whoever or whatever made chemistry is irrelevant. We are talking about information. The laws of chemistry are not disputed by anyone and I think that everyone agrees that the nucleotide bases of DNA (ACGT) form from chemical bonds. The question is the code and the information within the code.

[MrBaggins]

Now for a natural version of the experiment.

18 discrete locations.

each location an an number of an indentical radioactive masses, so that location one has 127^0, the second 127^1 and so on and so forth. The last location will have 5.81652E+35 masses.

The mass does not need to be large, and can be any stably decaying mass, though they do all need to be the same element.

Count the number of half lifes occuring at each location, and with this find the integer of modulus 127^18.

This will be an exact atomic representation of the algorithm.

[MrBaggins]

NB the number generated at each location is the ASCII value. The location with 1 mass is the first alphanumeric digit, the location with 127 masses is the second, and so on.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*
DNA indeed has utility that benefits an intelligent organism. How can you justify that statement? All of life’s instructions are in DNA including (as it appears) intelligence.
*snip*

No... the atomic formation of the brain... neuron types, initially strong pathways..

The brain is not magic.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*
Whoever or whatever made chemistry is irrelevant. We are talking about information. The laws of chemistry are not disputed by anyone and I think that everyone agrees that the nucleotide bases of DNA (ACGT) form from chemical bonds. The question is the code and the information within the code.

Now consider the permutations of DNA to be data, as the output of the algortithm... NOT information.

[Lincoln]

"No... the atomic formation of the brain... neuron types, initially strong pathways.. "

Well how do you think the brain is formed?