Evolution of de novo genes; a further nail in the coffin of intelligent design?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... are you claiming that DNA does not encode for eye color?

That's how we interpret it. In terms of the evolutionary process, if a certain part of the DNA changes, eye colour will change. If that is not detrimental to reproductive success, it's likely to persist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's how we interpret it. In terms of the evolutionary process, if a certain part of the DNA changes, eye colour will change. If that is not detrimental to reproductive success, it's likely to persist.

So if we interpret blue eyes we see blue eyes but if we interpret green we get green?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That isn't the case, the letters for the words that form the sentences that provide the instructions to act upon.

I can't quite parse that to be coherent - can you rephrase it? And are you talking in general, or about some particular system? e.g. human language? DNA?

The arrangements come from the information to form the arrangement.

In as much as everything is information, that's true. The arrangements of rock layers exposed on the Earth's surface provide information we can interpret to derive the geological history of that area. They were arranged that way by the information inherent in the geological activity there over geological timescales.

I don't know what you mean by your last statement would you mind clarifying it a bit?

It was a minor tangent - I said that meaning is a human concept; information doesn't have meaning of itself, we interpret it as having meaning when we understand its utility in particular contexts. So, by interpretation, we project or impose meaning on the world. For example, the rings of a tree trunk are an information source; the information has meaning when we interpret it, say, as evidence that tree growth is variable, or as seasonal growth rings, or as a health or age or climate indication, etc.

E.T.A. fix quotes

 

[Speedwell]

Patterns are not the information, they are the result of the information.

That's Informational Realism, a subset of Mathematical Realism and it's an unfalsifiable metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey would you mind fixing the quotes so I can more easily respond to your post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's Informational Realism, a subset of Mathematical Realism and it's an unfalsifiable metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one.

We are speaking entirely of physical elements which contain real information, in coded form that physically affects physical characteristics. It is most certainly a scientific proposition.

 

[pitabread]

Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols. It doesn't matter if we as humans can read DNA's code, it works without our interpretation. Yet, we can now read it because we know its language.

DNA is not a language; it doesn't contain any symbolic information. Rather, it's a biochemical structure that undergoes a series of chemical reactions in the production of proteins.

The term language is often used as a metaphor for DNA, but they are not one and the same.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So if we interpret blue eyes we see blue eyes but if we interpret green we get green?

No, I mean we interpret it as an encoding because it has many of the characteristics of human coding systems and can be described by the mathematics of information theory, but it lacks what are generally thought to be crucial components of human codes, the intent to communicate and symbolism. Our language is so suffused with implications of agency that I thought it worth mentioning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hey would you mind fixing the quotes so I can more easily respond to your post.

Sorry about that - now done.

 

[Oncedeceived]

DNA is not a language. The term language is often used a metaphor for DNA, but they are not one and the same.

Is it not a system of communication? Does it not convey instruction, is it not a system with symbols and rules? It is not a metaphor.
Scientists discover secret code hidden within human DNA
Ever since the genetic code was deciphered over 40 years ago, scientists have believed that it only described how proteins are made. However, the revelation made by the research team led by John Stamatoyannopoulos of the University of Washington indicates that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages.

“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said Stamatoyannopoulos, according to the press release. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture.”

Scientists discovered that the second language instructs the cells on how genes are controlled, according to findings published in Science magazine on Friday. The study is part of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, also known as ENCODE.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I mean we interpret it as an encoding because it has many of the characteristics of human coding systems and can be described by the mathematics of information theory, but it lacks what are generally thought to be crucial components of human codes, the intent to communicate and symbolism. Our language is so suffused with implications of agency that I thought it worth mentioning.

I see. Intent, is it not the intent of the blueprint of DNA to communicate instructions that are then conveyed and carried out for a specific purpose?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I give up...what?

You tell me - you said, "Patterns are not the information, they are the result of the information."

I'm asking what information resulted in the patterns of snowflakes.

I'm using the example you suggested to discover what you mean by information in this context.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry about that - now done.

No problem, I am always messing up with them as well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You tell me - you said, "Patterns are not the information, they are the result of the information."

I'm asking what information resulted in the patterns of snowflakes.

I'm using the example you suggested to discover what you mean by information in this context.

I'm using it in the biological aspects of DNA. Patterns of snowflakes have no informational element.

 

[pitabread]

Is it not a system of communication?

No, it isn't.

Does it not convey instruction, is it not a system with symbols and rules? It is not a metaphor.

It's a biological system based on chemical reactions for the ultimate production of proteins. However, it is not a language with the intent of symbolic representation of ideas or the communication thereof.

The term language gets used in relation to DNA because it's a handy metaphor for talking about it. But that's about it.

 

[Speedwell]

We are speaking entirely of physical elements which contain real information, in coded form that physically affects physical characteristics. It is most certainly a scientific proposition.

So you think there is an actual message encoded in the Shannon Information in the DNA?

 

[Speedwell]

I'm using it in the biological aspects of DNA. Patterns of snowflakes have no informational element.

How do you know? They may contain secret messages from Santa.

 

[pitabread]

So you think there is an actual message encoded in the Shannon Information in the DNA?

For what it's worth, it's certainly possible to encode a message into DNA. For example scientists inserted the code for an animated GIF into a bacteria's DNA: Scientists Upload a Galloping Horse GIF Into Bacteria With Crispr

Whether there are messages hidden in DNA on its own is a whole different question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you think there is an actual message encoded in the Shannon Information in the DNA?

You don't? If not why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you know? They may contain secret messages from Santa.

Well, we may never know.