Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...

[pitabread]

... those arguing are completely unable to define what constitutes "information" in that context?

I think in all the examples of this I've ever seen, nobody has ever attempted to actually define what information is as it applies to genetics.

 

[archer75]

I've never seen it, either.

Of course, one could say "you, sir, are a random CFer and not a geneticist, so what you don't understand is your own fault." Okay, but if my understanding doesn't matter, why is it that my positive opinion of such non-definitions would matter if I had one?

 

[pitabread]

I've never seen it, either.

Of course, one could say "you, sir, are a random CFer and not a geneticist, so what you don't understand is your own fault." Okay, but if my understanding doesn't matter, why is it that my positive opinion of such non-definitions would matter if I had one?

It matters when one attempts to use genetic information as an argument for design. If one cannot define the basic principle on which the argument rests, then the argument becomes moot.

 

[archer75]

It matters when one attempts to use genetic information as an argument for design. If one cannot define the basic principle on which the argument rests, then the argument becomes moot.

No, I was agreeing with you (though I see I could have been clearer).

 

[pitabread]

No, I was agreeing with you (though I see I could have been clearer).

I read your question as literal not rhetorical. My bad.

 

[Mediaeval]

Werner Gitt in his book, In the Beginning Was Information, identifies five elements of information: statistics, syntax (why is c-a-t a word, but not x-m-w?), semantics (the possible meanings of each word), pragmatics (how the information is received by the sender), and apobetics (the purpose behind the information). In the Beginning Was Information

 

[sfs]

Werner Gitt in his book, In the Beginning Was Information, identifies five elements of information: statistics, syntax (why is c-a-t a word, but not x-m-w?), semantics (the possible meanings of each word), pragmatics (how the information is received by the sender), and apobetics (the purpose behind the information).

My impression is that Gitt makes a series of assertions about information without either demonstrating their truth or their applicability to biology. If you've read Gitt -- how does one measure the information in DNA? How does one determine whether meaning or purpose is present?

 

[pitabread]

Werner Gitt in his book, In the Beginning Was Information, identifies five elements of information: statistics, syntax (why is c-a-t a word, but not x-m-w?), semantics (the possible meanings of each word), pragmatics (how the information is received by the sender), and apobetics (the purpose behind the information). In the Beginning Was Information

Here's my issue with Gitt's definition of information and DNA. His third criteria (semantics) suggests an inherent meaning contained in the information. Which is fine if we're discussing something like, say, language.

But what is the semantic content in DNA? Keeping in mind that when we're talking about DNA translation we're dealing with biochemical reactions producing amino acids not communication of message from a sender to receiver like a language.

He also posits this:

SC1: It must be possible to discern the ulterior intention at the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic levels

(From here: Information, Science and Biology)

Which begs the question, what is the ulterior intention of the meaning of DNA? Can it even be demonstrated that there is one?

 

[Mediaeval]

Here's my issue with Gitt's definition of information and DNA. His third criteria (semantics) suggests an inherent meaning contained in the information. Which is fine if we're discussing something like, say, language.

But what is the semantic content in DNA? Keeping in mind that when we're talking about DNA translation we're dealing with biochemical reactions producing amino acids not communication of message from a sender to receiver like a language.

He also posits this:



(From here: Information, Science and Biology)

Which begs the question, what is the ulterior intention of the meaning of DNA? Can it even be demonstrated that there is one?

Apart from the Google Books preview, I've not read Gitt's book. I was responding to the observation, "nobody has ever attempted to actually define what information is as it applies to genetics," and was aware that Gitt had dealt with that very question. While I cannot speak for Gitt, as far as semantic content goes, I would say a particular combination of DNA may mean in general, "This is a human." Of course, what DNA actually "says" is even more specific. A particular strand of DNA at a crime scene may say in effect, "A particular individual named so-and-so has been here."

 

[pshun2404]

As for the Genome and Information it depends on the scientists you study. For example...

"The information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg." Davison, John A., developmental biologist, Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, 2005

"From an information perspective, the genetic system is a pre-existent operating system of unknown origin that supports the storage and execution of a wide variety of specific genetic programs (the genome application), each being stored in the DNA." Johnson, Donald E., chemist and computer scientist, Programming of Life, 2007, p.48

 

[pshun2404]

I believe as we learn more and more it will turn out that we will come to realize through science that it is information that fuels the Universe. This is all NOT the result of chance whatsoever.

Information directs the formation of all structure and form (through the physical and chemical laws that matter/energy follows and conforms to), and directs and commands the principles governing all innate function.

Existence as we know it is not the cause of this information (though it does produce additional information), but rather it is the effect of it. This information is a sort of predetermination of parameters that thingness (matter and energy) must follow and adhere to resulting in purposed subsequence.

Biologist George Williams (see Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenge, 1992) begins the realization of this, within biological processes, when he says “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter.

He also says in an interview later, that...

“These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter. Information doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn't have bytes. You can't measure so much gold in so many bytes. It doesn't have redundancy, or fidelity, or any of the other descriptors we apply to information. This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.

The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution.

In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality. They're patterns.

In cultural evolution, obviously, the idea of a coffee cup or a table is something that persists. The coffee cups and tables don't persist, they recur as a result of the persistence of the information that tells people how to make coffee cups and tables. It's the same way in biology: hands and feet and noses and so on don't persist, they recur as a result of genetic instructions for making hands and feet and noses. It's the information that lasts and evolves. Obviously, it's because of the physical manifestations of the information that we know about the information.”

 

[pitabread]

I was responding to the observation, "nobody has ever attempted to actually define what information is as it applies to genetics," and was aware that Gitt had dealt with that very question.

I meant specifically in forum discussions/debates. I'm aware there are various applications of information theory as related to genetics, they just don't seem to find their way into these discussions. And particularly when it comes to someone making specific claims about 'information' in the genome coming from an intelligent source.

Anyway, I am familiar with Gitt at least so far as that published AiG article, but unfortunately it doesn't link his purported definition of information with genetics. Maybe he does so in his book, but unless someone here has read it, we may never know...

 

[pshun2404]

Note the language from these previously posted non-creationists...we can see as well that

DR. Mark Krasnow of Stanford University, while studying the Lung, has asked “How living creatures build their branching organs from standard designs encoded in DNA?”

Tabitha M Powledge in the NIH primer on “Genetics and Disease” says “Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual.”

Now I am sure that as time passes they, like the many others exploring these issues, will come up with viable concrete answers, but I believe what is of interest in this discussion is analysis of the language they use. Dr. Krasnow for example has no doubt that “standard designs” for what will become the lung are already encoded in the DNA. This means there is a plan (like a blue print of sorts) in the form of encoded information already present in the DNA long before there ever is the development of a lung in the creature.

There IS a built in purpose in this information to produce a very specific (as opposed to others) purposely functional Proteins that build an intended structure (in this case a lung) each being unique to each specific organism.

 

[pshun2404]

I meant specifically in forum discussions/debates. I'm aware there are various applications of information theory as related to genetics, they just don't seem to find their way into these discussions. And particularly when it comes to someone making specific claims about 'information' in the genome coming from an intelligent source.

Anyway, I am familiar with Gitt at least so far as that published AiG article, but unfortunately it doesn't link his purported definition of information with genetics. Maybe he does so in his book, but unless someone here has read it, we may never know...

Are you aware of the difference between "information theory" and "information science"? Information theory is very specific and deals only with information produced (in this field they are only concerned with information as an effect) in information science it is concerned with information as a cause or basis of what follows...they are totally the opposite (the two sides of one coin)...

Now though OFF TOPIC to be really shocked one can explore the new physics and note the powerful realization of the role of information and consciousness in determining our perceivable reality. Can matter/energy create the very laws and principles that guided their behavior from the moment they came into existence? Can this information be a quality of the universe separate from but influencing matter/energy?

 

[46AND2]

Note the language from these previously posted non-creationists...we can see as well that

DR. Mark Krasnow of Stanford University, while studying the Lung, has asked “How living creatures build their branching organs from standard designs encoded in DNA?”

Tabitha M Powledge in the NIH primer on “Genetics and Disease” says “Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual.”

Now I am sure that as time passes they, like the many others exploring these issues, will come up with viable concrete answers, but I believe what is of interest in this discussion is analysis of the language they use. Dr. Krasnow for example has no doubt that “standard designs” for what will become the lung are already encoded in the DNA. This means there is a plan (like a blue print of sorts) in the form of encoded information already present in the DNA long before there ever is the development of a lung in the creature.

There IS a built in purpose in this information to produce a very specific (as opposed to others) purposely functional Proteins that build an intended structure (in this case a lung) each being unique to each specific organism.

What do you think would happen if I sent an email to Dr. Krasnow and asked him if your statements accurately represent his position?

 

[pshun2404]

Please, I would strongly encourage that...but remember the point here (and I did give other comments) this was about the "language" used and MY point was it depends on what scientists you examine...some are not afraid to call'm as they see'm while still NOT defending ID theory or other such positions.

The whole evolving human being (or which ever creature, their form, forces, and funtions) are all "in potentia" withing the DNA program. Do you agree?

(I mean except for minor Epigenetic considerations they themselves or environmental influences will form as a result of their lifestyles, choices, and behaviors in their growth and development....)

Even the matter that one will MOST LIKELY have Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle Cell Anemia or be predisposed to heart disease or high blood pressure or possibly schizophrenia are already pre-written in their DNA are they not?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Apart from the Google Books preview, I've not read Gitt's book. I was responding to the observation, "nobody has ever attempted to actually define what information is as it applies to genetics," and was aware that Gitt had dealt with that very question. While I cannot speak for Gitt, as far as semantic content goes, I would say a particular combination of DNA may mean in general, "This is a human." Of course, what DNA actually "says" is even more specific. A particular strand of DNA at a crime scene may say in effect, "A particular individual named so-and-so has been here."

-_- that doesn't pan out, since DNA codons are so redundant that you could have a DNA strand produce a human identical to yourself with exceedingly different DNA. Plus, most genes produce multiple proteins, and telemeres at the ends of DNA only exist to compensate for the fact that every time a human cell divides, the DNA gets shorter (a common problem of eukaryotes in general). In females, the extra X chromosome is entirely shut off, forming a barr body. Yet, the same one is not shut off in every cell. So even genetically identical cells of the same tissue, right next to each other, will not necessarily function precisely equal to each other. And don't even get me started on human chimeras that are produced through the fusion of fraternal twin embryos.

 

[Mediaeval]

-_- that doesn't pan out, since DNA codons are so redundant that you could have a DNA strand produce a human identical to yourself with exceedingly different DNA. Plus, most genes produce multiple proteins, and telemeres at the ends of DNA only exist to compensate for the fact that every time a human cell divides, the DNA gets shorter (a common problem of eukaryotes in general). In females, the extra X chromosome is entirely shut off, forming a barr body. Yet, the same one is not shut off in every cell. So even genetically identical cells of the same tissue, right next to each other, will not necessarily function precisely equal to each other. And don't even get me started on human chimeras that are produced through the fusion of fraternal twin embryos.

I'm not clear on what your point was. Mine was that DNA, like all phenomena, "says" something, i.e., communicates information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not clear on what your point was. Mine was that DNA, like all phenomena, "says" something, i.e., communicates information.

Not really. Communication implies an intelligent generator and an intelligent interpreter. We have neither of those with DNA. The "information" argument by creationists is just an example of desperate clutching at straws.

 

[David Snell]

Not really. Communication implies an intelligent generator and an intelligent interpreter. We have neither of those with DNA. The "information" argument by creationists is just an example of desperate clutching at straws.

It seems that their faith is just not enough and they like us require some kind of evidence.