[debunked] Can new information be added to DNA?

[Loudmouth]

Here ya go. Debunk away: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

We already debunked it, using the article found in post #13.

 

[In situ]

That's a lot of chatter with no citations or support for a claim.
I'll give you a head start:
3.8 MILLION Articles
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

Instead of using Google University, why don't you open a text book on biochemistry and actually read it - basic science education is the validation you are asking for and all you mange to say is that you lack it.

 

[In situ]

If it's true that "information" is equivalent (to the antievolutionist) to "biochemical reactions"

Do you have any other suggestion? The point is, even if you have, it will all fall back to the very same well knonm chemistry and physic in the end. All YEC talk about "information" is a smoke shield to conceal the fact we are talking about the "information" in locks and keys - in that way YEC can misled the science ignorant public. Everyone knows it is the physical structure that is the ultimate cause of why a key works - not information. The same hold true for DNA, but you need to understand your chemistry and physics in order to understand that.

 

[In situ]

Here ya go. Debunk away: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

First of all, be specific in your claims. If you say everything you say nothing. Secondly if you are specific, then you should be able to address a specific issue and in such case I could (if I feel, and have the knowledge, for it) "debunk" your misconceptions of it, and as well point out your own ignorance of the subject in question. Because, you have already, all to clearly, shown to me in a previous remark that you have no clue what a "theory" means in science. And if you cannot get it right in the small, then how are you supposed to get it right in the large?

 

[In situ]

Which one don't I understand?

I call you out on have read 3.8 million articles, I call you out on even have read 1% of that - if anything at all. You asserting things out of thin air which you have no clue what you are talking about. You seam to think you can link to per-reviewed material to support some claim you made - in fact you made no claim at all but only a denial of an explanation. The purpose of your linking is clear to me; you try to portray yourself as being supported by "science", to understand more than you do, and tries to give a validity to your own denial by linking to random per-reviewed articles of which you neither have read nor understand yourself.

You argumentation is a bad version of "the machine gun argument", as you don't even make any claims at all but only refer to millions of unspoken or undefined claims. If you believe you can impress me or conceal your own ignorance around the topic in the OP then you are wrong. I have defined what words such as "information" mean in the context of genetics and DNA, according to definition in both coding theory and genetics.

Go ask a biologist and mathematician if you do not believe me or better up, read up on the basic knowledge in this subject, which would involve learning genetics and coding theory but before that you will need to study a lot of general math first as well as biology, which would take a few year to do and if you do not want to do that, then maybe, just maybe, you should start trust the real experts, like scientist, which spent a whole professional carrier just to understand what they talk about instead of some creationist loonies and your own fallacious judgments.

 

[In situ]

The word "information" is used quite a bit in that article.
Each use debunking the claim.

The word "and" and "the" is also often used. What is the point you try to make besides trying to turn this thread into "suggested reading"? Well, let me tell you this, I been reading quite a lot in my life, and all that reading learned me to tell when I know something but mostly important, when I don't know something.

If you think there is some additional or crucial knowledge I missed, then please point that out to me, but do not link to 3.8 million articles and ask me to read them all and then "debunk" something I have no idea why and what it is I am supposed to look for - it is just plain silly to do.

As it is now, you don't provide with any argument, nor any opinions - only "suggested reading" - more than a unspecified denial of an explanation and as such there is nothing to talk or discuss with you about.

 

[In situ]

"DNA is a structure that encodes biological information".

And I just explained what is meant with "encoding" and "information" in my OP. It is other words for what locks and keys does all the time - matching physical sctructures.

 

[In situ]

When we understand that there is no information in DNA (as is implied here).

How much more explicit do I need to be before it is not implicit?

If "information" is to mean "meaning" when we say "information", then there is no information in DNA. But if you with "meaning" mean "mapping", which is the definition used in coding theory, then there is information in DNA. But the "meaning" has no more meaning than being a mapping and that mapping, in molecular biology, is a physical structures, aka DNA. There is no need for a further "meaning" or "purpose" of the "information" (i.e. the structure) contained in DNA other than what is know from the laws of physic and chemistry.

I feel I only repeat myself, but to say that "no new information can be added to DNA" is equivalent to say "the structure of DNA cannot be altered". This is a demonstrable false claim and therefore nonsense to say. (However, this has not prevented some hilarious attempt from YEC's to work around this fact by saying that "the information has always been there and thus it was not added" - which is the same as to say that the structure always been there but, according to known physics and chemistry, somehow some untold mystical unknown force so far in some unexplained, and unobserved, way prevented it from causing the necessary forced chemical reactions).

That said.

We can either view everything being about information processing or we can ignore the concept totally. None of these extremes is an optimal way to think or reason about things. Some things are better treated as information processing processes other are not. DNA is not. My point is, yes it it is valid to talk about DNA as carriers of information, but it is not a useful concept when it comes to understand how DNA works. DNA is better understood in terms of chemistry and physics, not a theoretical concept as information (as defined in coding/information theory). This since information theory does not say anything about the underlying mechanics behind the information processing. So if you are not a biologist, then shut up about talking about information in DNA! In particular "new" information.

The concept of treating DNA as information is the "advanced class" and you need to understand the basic chemical and physical principles before you can understand and appreciate what the advanced thing implies. In other words, you need to do the tedious task of learning all the basic facts first. But as usually, those critical to science seams to believe they can skip all the basic knowledge in text books, i.e. established science, and then jump straight to front end research and understand it, apparently with the motivation that "science change all the time" - which again is nonsense to say if you do not know what you are talking about.

(It does not matter what you claim, what matter is why you claim something).

 

[In situ]

DNA is considered the building blocks of life.

The unit of life is the cell. Therefore there are literally thousands "building blocks of life" - whatever you mean with that - not which all comes from DNA. In fact a lot of DNA just produced enzyme which purpose is to speed up other molecular reactions, molecules brought in from the environment - you know that thing, you and I between as experts on biology, calls cell metabolism.

(Btw, you could just as well had said the building blocks of life is atoms - and you be even more correct then. But anyway, I take it you admitted, knowingly or not, that there is a pure naturalistic explanation to life then).

It is well engineered. Just piling up blocks blindly is not new information.

Define your usage of the term "new information" - I am sure your definition will not violate a definition we already know about information, in that which information cannot be destroyed nor created. If it is, then you must also admit that nothing which has, can or ever will be written contains something new called "information". I.e. you must then admitted that information in your definition has no physical presence which can be observed, i.e. it does not exists. And if it does not exist, then what is your point of talking about it?

(I also notice you do not understand basic chemistry - because if you did you would know that atomic/molecular structure defines chemical properties and that something new in fact happens when atoms and molecules fuses and fission).

 

[In situ]

Too bad they don't overtly define the term "information". However, this seems like a good working definition:

"What do a human, a rose, and a bacterium have in common? Each of these things — along with every other organism on Earth — contains the molecular instructions for life, called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. Encoded within this DNA are the directions for traits as diverse as the color of a person's eyes, the scent of a rose, and the way in which bacteria infect a lung cell."

Information, as they seem to define it, is the DNA sequence giving rise to phenotypes, be it physical traits or even as simple as RNA transcripts. Can you get new phenotypes through mutation and natural selection? Yep, you sure can.

So by the definition given here, it would seem quite simple for evolution to produce new information.

It seams to me to be a qualitative definition and not very useful for a formal treatment. In particular as we do not know, except in a "few" cases, how mutation affects the phenotype. In other words, we do not know the mapping function. On the other hand if we restrict ourselves to the transcription from nucleotide sequences to peptide sequence we can precisely tell the mapping function and as well quantify any information content.

But then again, I still think this kind of talk about information content in DNA is intellectual acrobatics, the concept of information in DNA seams from my limited perspective to be something mainly YEC's are obsessed with - and this for well known reasons which has nothing to do with science. But I may very well be wrong in that respect (I have taken notice there are some papers written by biologist on this matter, but they are to complicated for a simpleton as me and I can't bother myself to try to understand them so I cannot tell).

What I am trying to say is that when biologist talk about information in DNA they probably, in most cases, do not have a formal technical definition in mind... and why should they? I don't know. If anyone knows a good reason, please do tell me.

 

[In situ]

Better look at the article I was referring to.

Which article is that - is it the one you refered to in another thread?

 

[In situ]

The word "information" is used quite a bit in that article.
Each use debunking the claim. Got milk?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

... find information on the diagnosis ... General information about ... Health information (2 links) ... Information Center ... Information about ... Educational resources - Information pages (12 links) .... test information (1 link)

I don't see what relevance this post has to anything mentioned so far. To me this looks more like trash posting. Beside trying to be funny by playing with the meaning of the word "information", what is the point you are trying to make? Or is the point that you actually do not understand what issue it is I am trying to address here?

 

[Loudmouth]

It seams to me to be a qualitative definition and not very useful for a formal treatment. In particular as we do not know, except in a "few" cases, how mutation affects the phenotype. In other words, we do not know the mapping function. On the other hand if we restrict ourselves to the transcription from nucleotide sequences to peptide sequence we can precisely tell the mapping function and as well quantify any information content.

We can also use reporter genes to analyze mutations in promoter regions. People often use a luciferase or green fluorescent protein gene, and put it downstream of the promoter being studied. Any changes in the level of those proteins can be measured, letting you know how changes in the promoter region of the gene are affected by mutations, or how mutations affect the transcription factors that bind to the promoter regions.

You could also directly measure the molecular interactions between molecules using surface plasmon resonance.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_resonance

What I am trying to say is that when biologist talk about information in DNA they probably, in most cases, do not have a formal technical definition in mind... and why should they? I don't know. If anyone knows a good reason, please do tell me.

For biologists, they work on a model (i.e. hypothesis) of how life works. They also need to communicate this model to the rest of the scientific community. When they use something like "DNA information" they do have a very technical definition in mind, and it relates to their model. That is how all scientific terminology works.

ID/creationists, on the other hand, just want to make evolution go away. Their terminology doesn't relate to anything real, or anything scientific. This is why they are continually moving the goal posts.

 

[And-U-Say]

How much more explicit do I need to be before it is not implicit?

If "information" is to mean "meaning" when we say "information", then there is no information in DNA. But if you with "meaning" mean "mapping", which is the definition used in coding theory, then there is information in DNA. But the "meaning" has no more meaning than being a mapping and that mapping, in molecular biology, is a physical structures, aka DNA. There is no need for a further "meaning" or "purpose" of the "information" (i.e. the structure) contained in DNA other than what is know from the laws of physic and chemistry.

I feel I only repeat myself, but to say that "no new information can be added to DNA" is equivalent to say "the structure of DNA cannot be altered". This is a demonstrable false claim and therefore nonsense to say. (However, this has not prevented some hilarious attempt from YEC's to work around this fact by saying that "the information has always been there and thus it was not added" - which is the same as to say that the structure always been there but, according to known physics and chemistry, somehow some untold mystical unknown force so far in some unexplained, and unobserved, way prevented it from causing the necessary forced chemical reactions).

That said.

We can either view everything being about information processing or we can ignore the concept totally. None of these extremes is an optimal way to think or reason about things. Some things are better treated as information processing processes other are not. DNA is not. My point is, yes it it is valid to talk about DNA as carriers of information, but it is not a useful concept when it comes to understand how DNA works. DNA is better understood in terms of chemistry and physics, not a theoretical concept as information (as defined in coding/information theory). This since information theory does not say anything about the underlying mechanics behind the information processing. So if you are not a biologist, then shut up about talking about information in DNA! In particular "new" information.

The concept of treating DNA as information is the "advanced class" and you need to understand the basic chemical and physical principles before you can understand and appreciate what the advanced thing implies. In other words, you need to do the tedious task of learning all the basic facts first. But as usually, those critical to science seams to believe they can skip all the basic knowledge in text books, i.e. established science, and then jump straight to front end research and understand it, apparently with the motivation that "science change all the time" - which again is nonsense to say if you do not know what you are talking about.

(It does not matter what you claim, what matter is why you claim something).

Someone who gets it. Yes, DNA carries information, but not the kind meant by people who say DNA can't add information on its own. The structure comment is exactly what I mean. Creationists don't get this.

 

[Aggie]

Then you'd better tell us what information is. Anything that can be in multiple states can be treated as information, so I have no problem with treating the sequence of DNA as information (and have done so professionally once or twice). In that sense, new information is added to DNA all the time. But that isn't what you mean, so you'd better offer your own definition.

FYI, Answers in Genesis defines information as meaning basically the same thing as "protein specificity". They have a lot of articles that use this definition, but here's one: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/special-tools-of-life/ That article states, "A loss of specificity is a loss of information and usually not beneficial."

That's the argument that needs to be addressed. Note that the article is from 2004--this is how Answers in Genesis has defined information for over a decade.

According to this definition, the best example I'm aware of where a mutation has added more information is the mutation Apolipoprotein AI in humans. Perhaps there are other examples as good at that one, but if there are, I'm not aware of them.

 

[Hoghead1]

FYI, Answers in Genesis defines information as meaning basically the same thing as "protein specificity". They have a lot of articles that use this definition, but here's one: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/special-tools-of-life/ That article states, "A loss of specificity is a loss of information and usually not beneficial."

That's the argument that needs to be addressed. Note that the article is from 2004--this is how Answers in Genesis has defined information for over a decade.

According to this definition, the best example I'm aware of where a mutation has added more information is the mutation Apolipoprotein AI in humans. Perhaps there are other examples as good at that one, but if there are, I'm not aware of them.[/QU

My advice is that you should very carefully check AIG. They are definitely not a reliable source of information.

 

[Aggie]

My advice is that you should very carefully check AIG. They are definitely not a reliable source of information.

I think they are a reliable source for how creationists define the term "information", when they argue that mutations can't increase it. That's the only thing I'm using them as a source for.

 

[DogmaHunter]

. DNA is considered the building blocks of life. It is well engineered. Just piling up blocks blindly is not new information.

That's like saying that "piling up letters" is not "new information", since a "new sentence" is just another assembly of the letters A to Z.

The "information" in DNA is about the sequence of the "letters".
Since mutations can add, delete or change these "letters", "information" can thus be added, removed or changed.

ps: note the use quotes in this post. Because the words "information" and "letters" in context of DNA are mere analogies to simplify communication about, and understanding of, the rather complex bio-chemical reality that it really is. Because in the end, DNA is just a molecule. A really big, complex molecule. But just a molecule nonetheless.

 

[joshua 1 9]

can new chemical reactions be added to DNA?

How chemicals react remains consistent from the beginning to the end. God does not move the goal posts and change the rules in the middle of the game. The natural laws remain consistent and unchanged.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How chemicals react remains consistent from the beginning to the end. God does not move the goal posts and change the rules in the middle of the game. The natural laws remain consistent and unchanged.

Then how do you feel about the fact that sometimes, RNA bases get left in DNA?