DNA and Information

[C1ay]

the action and results of action by DNA seem almost SUPERNATURAL, do they not ?

No, I don't see anything we observe as supernatural.

[TRoutMac]

So you are saying nature generates no information? The rings of a tree carry no information of it's age?

 

How many times must it be explained that there's more than one connotation for the term "information"? I have said numerous times by now that DNA carries a kind of information that is absolutely unique in nature, and I've supported that statement with scientific observations of the DNA molecule. Yes, you can call tree rings "information", you can correctly say that nature generates information if by "information" you mean merely "complex" information. But that's not the information we're talking about, and that type of information is not mysterious in the least. The instructions in DNA (complex specified information) most certainly is mysterious and definitely unique.

 

Talk about fast one. Just because any aliens that might exist have would have conscious activity does not allow the leap to conclude that information can only come from conscious activity.

 

Look, you made the claim… that it backs you into an uncomfortable corner is not my problem nor is it my fault. I said that we "do have observable evidence as to the origin of every other information storage and processing system. That origin is Intelligence." And you replied that "That is only true of human generated information." So… if you believe that humans are not the only beings in the universe with our degree of intelligence, then your statement is contradictory. If intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, and particularly if those beings meet or exceed our intelligence, then it's quite obvious that they will engage in "conscious activity" as well. If those beings are able to build structures to live in, modes of transportation or machines of various kinds, then their conscious activity produces information.

 

Behind every machine we make as humans is a set of plans which describe how that machine is built and how it functions. If alien beings are sufficently intelligent to design and build machines, then they most assuredly build those machines according to similar plans. That's the kind of information we're talking about.

 

Bottom line is, your statement that "That is only true of human generated information." is absolutely false and my statement that we "do have observable evidence as to the origin of every other information storage and processing system. That origin is Intelligence." is absolutely true. Whether that intelligence is human, alien, or otherwise is irrelevant. The origin of information is intelligence in general, regardless of who or what possesses the intelligence. Intelligence as a quality manifests itself in certain predictable ways, regardless of who possesses it, and the production of complex specified information is one manifestation of intelligence.

 

Just because it gets you nowhere doesn't mean it's not a possibility and there's no reason to believe it's any less possible than some mythical designer.

 

So we should pursue scientific theories which we know will get us nowhere, which we know will never be able to answer the ultimate question we've asked? And all simply because to do so allows us to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that there's not an intelligence far, far greater than our own in existence? That's just plain silly. I've a better idea… let's all be big boys and girls and follow the evidence wherever it leads. That, after all, is what science is all about.

 

Surely you're not claiming that you have observable evidence of what the designer you believe in can or cannot be.

 

When have I implied any such thing? I've said numerous times that the identity of the intelligence is not relevant to the argument. Pertinent to this thread specifically, the question can be summarized as follows: "How do we account for the information in DNA?" The only reasonable answer, given what we know of DNA and about similar information which we produce (using our own intelligence) is "Intelligence".

[TRoutMac]

the action and results of action by DNA seem almost SUPERNATURAL, do they not ?

 

Well, that's a tricky question. I don't really think the function and the product of DNA is all that supernatural… after all, we can observe that rather directly, can we not? I think you could speculate that the information in DNA would appear to have a "supernatural" origin, although once again that presumes that we know where nature stops and the supernatural begins, and I'm not so sure that we have such knowledge.

 

But it brings to mind another question you've raised in the past, Questor… at least I think you've raised this question: Can we account for our intelligence and our consciousness scientifically? Can we account for the fact that we are alive and aware on the basis of scientific observation? We can account for why our bodies and brains function, but that's not really the same thing.

 

Basically, the idea I'm developing here is that intelligence itself, even the intelligence which we possess as humans, is "supernatural". We can't explain why we have it. If we know what constitutes the "supernatural", then it just might be that any time we explain the existence of, say, a topiary which is trimmed so that it spells the name of a town by reference to an intelligence, we are invoking the supernatural. Would you agree with that, Questor? Would you agree that our own intelligence might fit the characteristics of what we call "supernatural"?

[coldcreation]

I've said numerous times that the identity of the intelligence is not relevant to the argument. Pertinent to this thread specifically, the question can be summarized as follows: "How do we account for the information in DNA?" The only reasonable answer, given what we know of DNA and about similar information which we produce (using our own intelligence) is "Intelligence".

 

TroutMac, are you saying that intelligent design is needed to explain the information in DNA, and in essence, that the DNA information is of supernatural origin? And if so, do you think this type of discussion belongs in a thread placed in the Biology section of a science forum? To the last question, if you answer yes, please tell me where science plays a role, if any, with respect to DNA. Thanks in advance for your response.

 

cc

[C1ay]

Behind every machine we make as humans is a set of plans which describe how that machine is built and how it functions. If alien beings are sufficently intelligent to design and build machines, then they most assuredly build those machines according to similar plans. That's the kind of information we're talking about.

But that does not mean that you can conclude that the only possible origin of DNA is design. That's really the bottom line, science does not say that design of DNA is not possible, only that we can't conclude any origin of DNA. You insist that intelligent design is the only possible cause and that's a leap of faith. Unless you can prove otherwise this thread belongs in theology, not biology.

[TRoutMac]

TroutMac, are you saying that intelligent design is needed to explain the information in DNA, and in essence, that the DNA information is of supernatural origin?

 

I certainly am saying that intelligent design is the only reasonable and rational explanation for the origin of information in DNA. The thing that is missed by the typical ill-informed ID basher is that Intelligent Design is not merely a theory about origin of life… it is an explanation for virtually anything created by an intelligence.

 

For example, some folks believe that crop circles were created by aliens visiting this planet… that right there is intelligent design theory applied to a phenomenon… in this case, crop circles. We may or may not be certain of who the intelligent designers of crop circles are… I tend to believe they are human. But there are those that still believe they are alien. There are various characteristics in a crop circle that indicate intelligent authorship. Those same characteristics are exhibited quite clearly in biological systems and DNA. If, upon seeing these characteristics in crop circles, we must conclude intelligent authorship in crop circles, (either human or alien… the identity is not relevant) then we should also conclude intelligent authorship when we see those same cues in biology. If we apply the conclusion "over there", but not "over here" then we're being logically inconsistent.

 

As for invoking the supernatural, the allegation is really a smoke screen. Intelligent Design theory, as it applies to origin of life, doesn't claim knowledge of any characteristics of the designer save that the designer obviously possesses intelligence. One reason to avoid characterizing the designer as "supernatural" is that to do so implies that we already know the full extent of what is "natural". An honest, objective assessment of scientific knowledge will conclude that we have no such knowledge. Many proponents of ID may indeed believe that the designer is God of the Bible, myself included, and we may be comfortable with the idea that this God is "supernatural", but we admit that to identify the designer as such has no scientific support and is indeed a matter of faith.

 

And if so, do you think this type of discussion belongs in a thread placed in the Biology section of a science forum?

 

This discussion is about understanding the information in DNA. If this isn't a topic that's appropriate for a biology forum, then I certainly can't imagine a topic that would be appropriate for a biology forum. It's not as though biologists do not study DNA, after all. So my answer is unequivocally "Yes". This "type" of discussion most certainly is appropriate for a biology forum.

 

To the last question, if you answer yes, please tell me where science plays a role, if any, with respect to DNA.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question here… do you not believe that the study of DNA is within the purview of science? Or do you believe that if DNA is the product of intelligence, then the study of it is not within the purview of science? No matter… the answer to the question is that science should always look for answers about our world, and that includes studying DNA. That scientists have discovered DNA is commendable. But the extent to which scientists continue to deliberately misinterpret DNA in order to avoid a particular conclusion (ID) is the extent to which those scientists have abandoned the scientific method.

 

If DNA is indeed the product of an Intelligent Designer, and not the result of billions of years of evolution, and we continue to investigate DNA's function from an evolutionary point of view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then we will never properly understand DNA and science will have failed miserably.

[TRoutMac]

But that does not mean that you can conclude that the only possible origin of DNA is design.

 

Yes, actually… it does.

 

That's really the bottom line, science does not say that design of DNA is not possible, only that we can't conclude any origin of DNA.

 

If science "does not say that design of DNA is not possible", then on what basis should science avoid exploring that explanation? Hmmmm? If it's "possible", then shouldn't science explore that explanation? And if science refuses to explore a possible explanation, then is that even "science"?

 

You insist that intelligent design is the only possible cause and that's a leap of faith. Unless you can prove otherwise this thread belongs in theology, not biology.

 

I have already proven repeatedly that Intelligent Design is not a "leap of faith". It is grounded in science and logic and is consistent with many other realms of scientific study. That you are incapable of seeing this is not my problem. Theology is the study of God. This discussion is about information in DNA, not the study of God. Since DNA is at the core of biology, this discussion is right at home within a biology forum. I realize some of you would feel much less threatened if you could ram, cram and jam this discussion into the theology forum where everything is ambiguous and nothing is certain, but the topic of this discussion does not belong in the theology forum.

[questor]

TM, certain segments of society are almost violently opposed to ID because

the acceptance of the idea would lead to a Deity or supernatural being or force. this seems at odds with the acceptance of other forces or predictions such as time, gravity, dark matter, space curvature, strings, et cetera which

have not been proved or are only dimly understood. some of these phenomena, including quantum activity of particles border upon the supernatural or at least extraordinary. can theoretical math predict human thought, animal instinct, all elementary particle activity? not at this time. will it ever, or will new math principles need to be discovered before all phenomenae can be scientifically explained?

[coldcreation]

TM, certain segments of society are almost violently opposed to ID because

.........or will new math principles need to be discovered before all phenomenae can be scientifically explained?

 

Do you think a new math principle needs to be discovered before ID can be explained? If not, what needs to be discovered?

 

I fail to see the connection between biological DNA information and the current discussion that has been tending toward ID since the outset of this thread. Indeed, it seems the objective of this thread is to promote ID in a section dedicated to the study of life and other obsevable phenomena.

 

If the 'unobservable' is your interest than how is biology related to your subject, or how do you relate your subject (ID) to biology, i.e., on what observations or experiments are you founding your ID proposal?

 

cc

[C1ay]

But that does not mean that you can conclude that the only possible origin of DNA is design.

 

Yes, actually… it does.

No, you have absolutely no proof that DNA was designed, no one does. It is not that way just because you say so. Provide absolute proof that DNA is designed and disprove the possibility that it results from any other cause or this thread is headed for Strange Claims. To declare that design is the only possibility without proof is a leap of faith no matter how many times you claim that you've proven it isn't.

[TRoutMac]

No, you have absolutely no proof that DNA was designed, no one does

 

I never claimed "absolute proof". I do claim, however, that the information-carrying characteristics of DNA is certainly overwhelming and compelling evidence for design. So overwhelming is this evidence that if we are to be logically consistent, we would conclude that design is the most reasonable, rational explanation.

 

It is not that way just because you say so. Provide absolute proof that DNA is designed and disprove the possibility that it results from any other cause or this thread is headed for Strange Claims.

 

I never claimed it is that way simply "because I say so". If you were honest enough to deal with my arguments at face value, you wouldn't make that assertion. I have backed up my assertions with scientific facts. I have not based my arguments on my own personal authority. I realize this is the biology forum and not the theology forum, so I have presented legitimate scientific descriptions of DNA and its function. That these scientific facts strongly support the Intelligent Design theory as it pertains to origins is simply tough toenails for naturalists.

 

You want an example of something from this thread that qualifies for the "Strange Claims" forum? How about the assertion made earlier that there's nothing unique about the information carried in DNA when compared with other molecules. That's a strange claim. But the facts I've presented regarding DNA and it's function and makeup, and how it compares with other molecules is consistent with current scientific analysis.

 

To declare that design is the only possibility without proof is a leap of faith.

 

I agree. That's why I've not taken that tack. If you're not honest enough to admit it, that's your problem not mine.

[C1ay]

So overwhelming is this evidence that if we are to be logically consistent, we would conclude that design is the most reasonable, rational explanation.

No. To be consistant as scientists we don't conclude anything without proof. To conclude is to reach a decision or bring to an end, to close the matter. We have no evidence to bring to an end any agreement or settllement on the origin of DNA. To say that you can conclude such a decision is the same as saying the matter is closed to other possibilities. Can you not see that your evidence does not support such a conclusion?

[TRoutMac]

No. To be consistant as scientists we don't conclude anything without proof. To conclude is to reach a decision or bring to an end, to close the matter. We have no evidence to bring to an end any agreement or settllement on the origin of DNA. To say that you can conclude such a decision is the same as saying the matter is closed to other possibilities. Can you not see that your evidence does not support such a conclusion?

 

Well, if that's the case then you ought to talk more with other ID bashers… they have certainly closed the matter to other possibilities, haven't they? And yet, they cannot offer proof of their position either. Goes both ways, I'm afraid.

 

Do you deny that the information carrying characteristics of DNA (and RNA)make it absolutely unique among other polymers?

 

Why is it that the scientists at SETI can invoke Intelligent Design if they stumble across a certain kind of radio signal, but a biologist cannot invoke Intelligent Design when he sees a similar "signature" in DNA? Is there anyone here on this forum who is capable of answering that question?

[C1ay]

Why is it that the scientists at SETI can invoke Intelligent Design if they stumble across a certain kind of radio signal, but a biologist cannot invoke Intelligent Design when he sees a similar "signature" in DNA? Is there anyone here on this forum who is capable of answering that question?

Who said they can't. Explore ID as a theory all you want, just don't declare it as the answer without the proof to support it. What you need is a theory that can be used to produce predictions and tests to measure those predictions. So far we haven't seen that. All the IDers want to do is say that their answer is the answer without all of the science required to support it.

[TRoutMac]

Who said they can't. Explore ID as a theory all you want, just don't declare it as the answer without the proof to support it. What you need is a theory that can be used to produce predictions and tests to measure those predictions. So far we haven't seen that. All the IDers want to do is say that their answer is the answer without all of the science required to support it.

 

You're avoiding the question. If SETI located a radio signal and had concluded that the signal was from an intelligence because it met certain criteria which indicated an intelligent source, would you balk at their conclusion and say it was unscientific? If so, why? If not, why? Do you understand that SETI must have some sort of criteria for deciding whether a given signal is from an intelligence or not, that without such criteria they would be wasting their time?

[C1ay]

You're avoiding the question. If SETI located a radio signal and had concluded that the signal was from an intelligence because it met certain criteria which indicated an intelligent source, would you balk at their conclusion and say it was unscientific? If so, why? If not, why? Do you understand that SETI must have some sort of criteria for deciding whether a given signal is from an intelligence or not, that without such criteria they would be wasting their time?

No, I'm not avoiding your question. First off, SETI hasn't located any such signal in the vast quantity of data analyzed. Since we don't have such an actual event we can't even discuss the actual circumstances of the discovery or this supposed conclusion. I know I will have reservations without some proof of origin.

[Boerseun]

You don't understand what SETI is looking for, or how it works.

 

SEIT isn't looking for complexity, if we pick up radio signals from an alien intelligence, chances are almost zero that the modulation used for information transmission will be understood by us. What we are looking for is artificiality in these signals. In other words, simplicity. We are looking for monochromatic transmissions in the radio spectrum that simply cannot be ascribed to any natural process which comes with a lot of radio noise.

 

Consider a lightning strike. A huge blast of electromagnetic power, covering almost the entire spectrum. A bolt of lightning on Jupiter can be picked up by radio telescopes on Earth, and is incredibly complex in terms of decoding possible modulations hidden in the noise. But a simple single-frequency whistle, lacking all the complexity ID proponents whish to ascribe to it in order to use SETI as an analogy for DNA complexity, will suffice. We are looking for artificiality. And that's a world away from DNA complexity and redundancy.

 

Right. Fire your next shot.