Since we're focusing on whether or not it required intelligence to come to its current state, let's examine that aspect of information and see if it qualifies. Interestingly, it appears muchas sources secular refer to the DNA code as information. This source actually used the DNA example in its definition OF information: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Considering the example from computer code (which I assume we agree had an intelligent source), Bill Gates said, "Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced then any software ever created[1]." Some consider it quote mining for a creationist to use his quote, since he did not mean it in a creationist context, but I'm considering here his comparison of DNA to computer code, which he is qualified to comment on. We could also legitimately compare protein building by DNA to the CAD/CAM industry, where computer code is read by manufacturing machines which mold, cut and assemble items accordingly. For serious info-science types, a full article by Gitt, in which he discusses Shannon's earlier information theory, as well as the information-bearing properties of DNA can be found here: http://wernergitt.com/down_eng/G_1533_Information_science_and_biology.pdf
But let's look at it from a language perspective. Let's consider for this discussion that information is a series of symbols that convey meaningful ideas to a receiver (I believe this matches or is close to the definition proposed by commenter, ExPatMatt). If I spell the word "B-A-T", I encode information as a sequence of symbols that can be read by the receiver through a conventional system of interpretation known as reading the English language. Now if I further sequence multiple words into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, I increase the information and compound the meaning conveyed. We could even consider the context in which I placed the sentences to increase meaning to a "meta-information" level. We've all heard of quote mining, where a quote is taken out of the context intended by the author. Now compare this to shaking the Scrabble letter bag and picking them out randomly and placing them in a row on the table. The same symbols are used, but have no meaning. True, the word "B-A-T" could turn up randomly by coincidence, but would be of low quantity and quality, not to mention we would could easily tell which sequences were random and which were applied by their specified complexity. If on the table next to the one with the random "B-A-T" sequence, we saw "T-H-E B-A-T B-I-T T-H-E R-A-T", we would know it was not coincidence, but a deliberate sequence.
On to a comparison with DNA. The four nucleotide bases, A, T, G and C represent letters. A sequence of three bases (a codon) carry the info for assembling an amino acid or a word in our example. The sequence in which the amino acids chain together determine the identity and function of the protein being built, which in our example would be a sentence. The way the proteins are assembled form cellular type and structure (muscle, bone, organ, etc.), or "paragraphs", and onward and upward we go, until we have the multiple volumes that constitute a human being (about 30,000 genes, each an average of about 12,500 base-pairs). The entire genome of DNA information for an organism is contained in every one of trillions of cells.
Though some want an exception in this case, in all of human experience, information has only arisen from an intelligent source. This is why I agree that DNA is indeed God's signature on every cell. The more we study DNA, the more we realize that the genes formerly considered "junk" are being found to have non-protein coding, regulatory function (shrinking levels of vestigial code should represent a problem for evolution, btw) What's really amazing is that about 20% of DNA can also be read backwards for additional information! Don't worry, it's totally free of Satanic messages. I say with my science hero, Louis Pasteur, "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
[1] Gates, 1995, Education: the Best Investment, p.188
I wonder if you are getting your apologetics mixed up? Usually the question asked is more along the lines of 'Is DNA a code', I mean I would be surprised if you could find *anyone* who didn't think DNA contained information. And I've never heard of Gitt information before, again usually the discussion is about Shannon and Kolmogrov Information.
ReplyDeleteOh I see Gitt is the writer of the Creation.com paper.
The false premise here is that 'Information' can't be natural.
There is a now infamous post from the now defunct richarddawkins.net forums that went something like this.
Which of the following photos is an example of 'Information'?
Sand dunes
TV Static
Zodiac Killer note.
Dog Poop.
Child's Scribble.
The Answer of course is that they are all Information. Just different kinds of information.
Junk DNA is a funny one, often misrepresented by Creationists. A lot of the stuff that gets labeled 'Junk' isn't there because people don't know what it does. On the contrary, it's because they do know what it is.
I'm going to quote myself here because I wrote this up on another blog.
"Genetics is the strongest evidence for Evolution. The Genome is full of useless dna. Lots of it,
LINEs and SINEs make up 21% & 13% of your Genome respectively. They are non protein encoding segments that pretty much just sit there and replicate themselves back into the genome.
ERVs make up like 8% of the Genome. One of the fun things with ERV’s is that you find them everywhere. And we know how they got there, viral insertions in sperm/egg cells that are then passed onto the child. So you make predictions about where they should show up. Why do Chimpanzees and Humans have the EXACT SAME Retrovirus, in the EXACT SAME location in their genome, but Orang-utans don’t?
But why do those 3 all share a different Retrovirus in the EXACT SAME place but don’t share it with Gibbons? Why do those 4 all have a Different Retrovirus inserted into their Genome in the EXACT SAME place but not Old or New World Monkeys? You can create an entire family tree that matches the predictions of the theory of evolution from this nested Hierarchy. And yes we all know there are examples of ERVs being co-opted into being functional.
Then there are the psuedo- genes.
Did you know there 19,000 psuedo genes in your DNA? That’s a gene which is there, but it’s turned off. Compared to ~ 20,000 normal coding genes.
You know genes for things like Prehensile Feet. You have a Gene for Prehensile Feet sitting there in your DNA, just it got deactivated by mutations. So it’s still there, sitting dormant.
Like your gene for making Vitamin C. Did you know that? You could make your own but the gene is turned off. Strangely enough it’s turned off in all Simians. Hmm so we another set of items that have a traceable family tree. 19,000 of them in fact. You can trace the reasons for them being switched off. And guess what, the family tree matches again the prediction made by the theory of evolution.
It’s this kind of repeated prediction and test that can be done thousands of times is the basis for this video by DonExodus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY"
I think the Vitamin C example is one of Steven J's favourite.
To summarize that, ~42% of your Genome is 3 kinds of 'Junk' precisely because we DO know what it's doing.
One of my favourite videos on YouTube is from cdk007, who has a great origins series, it's his "The Origin of Genes" video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLnr_3J1IT8
It's fun because it details a 2006 research paper where Japanese researchers replaced a gene in a bacterium with "Random DNA" and within a few generations there was a measurable improvement in the performance of the bacterium as it replaced the random DNA with a new *different* gene. Mutation and Natural Selection was creating a new protein from randomized DNA.
Hi BT,
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. I accept your qualification of the argument. I agree that Dawkin's examples all represent visual information, but it's coded information I'm interested in, in this case.
It's off to bed with me right now, but to roll the conversation ball a bit, do you consider DNA the only exception in all human experience to "Coded info always traces to an intelligent source"?
Nothing to do with Richard Dawkins (the person) simply a post on his now defunct forums. You would need to define visual information because I don't think you quite understood the point example. All those examples were encoded in some form.
ReplyDeleteBathTub said...
ReplyDelete"Nothing to do with Dawkins..."
Got it. Thanks.
"All those examples were encoded..."
Lost me there. I can see how some were, but not all.
well you need to tell me what you mean by 'visual' information.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBathtub said...
ReplyDelete[junk DNA]
"LINEs and SINEs...just sit there..."
Perhaps as far as we know right now.
[pseudogenes]
Want to turn on a gene right now that normally lies dormant? Curl weights with high frequency (1 or 2 times/day) and you will. Want to turn off a different gene? Consume only low glycemic carbs. I'm not saying some DNA is not permanently dormant, but given time, we'll figure out more of what genes do. Yes, I have read that the vitamin C production gene is turned off. Prehensile feet, I'm coming up empty. For this, I need to know how we know which primate gene is responsible for this trait, and how well it matched up to that in humans (the process may not be as precise as popular belief). Source on this?
[ERVs]
"And we know how they got there"
How do we distinguish them from transposons? Many ERV's appear to serve regulatory functions, which of course would also be the case if designed. Certain ERV's target specific types of cells in specific species, according to this anti-creationist author: http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evidence.html
Why could the ERV's not separately enter the same site in similar species carrying similar sequences?
If some ERV's overlap species, and some do not, that explains his example of 5 ERVs in mammal evolution from a creationist perspective.
[Don Exodus' vid]
I did watch it and the comparative anatomy portion explains everything extremely well, if we first assume evolution happened. Creationist models of a phylogentic orchard of kinds would of course also show similar homology where similar biological function is called for.
[Japanese researchers...random DNA]
What is meant by random? A lot of things get touted in popular press as supporting evolution, but upone closer examination, intelligent agency was heavily involved to get things rolling - Venter and his "man-made" microbe, for example.
I said we know what they do, and you quote 'just sit there'. that's not an accurate representation of what I just said.
ReplyDeleteI was cutting and pasting something I wrote months and months ago, I honestly can't recall what the source for the prehensile feet part was at the time. it could be the plantaris tendon that I am thinking of. I'll try digging it up later.
I have no idea what your reference to transpons is about. But there is a universe of difference between saying some things have a preference for certain areas and duplicate insertions at the same base pair point in the genome.
It's like throwing 2 pins out of a jet plane and they both land in the same molecule of dirt. And then this happening thousands and thousands of times. In the exact same family tree that other tests provide (like the psuedogenes)
And yes Geneticists can identify 2 similar insertions that aren't inherited as opposed to a insertion that was inherited. There was an example in some primate line that I will try and look up where initially it appeared that 2 species of primate shared an erv but closer look revealed it to be 2 independent insertions.
That's the second time you have used that orchard example, and I've been asking for your evidence of that over at the swamp too. Look at any Tree of Life website, this difficulty you speak of is remarkably absent. And sounds like you completely ignored the genetic portion of the video.
It's not a presupposition of Evolution. It's a test of Genetics. These trees are the exact same thing that would be done to perform a genetic test on you to determine who your father/mother/cousins etc are using genetic tests. It's a prediction and test, not a presupposition. Just like Human Chromosome #2.
And it was a scientific paper, if you want to know specific details *read the paper*. The point was it was an example of new "information" evolving.
And you still haven't defined 'visual' information.
Bathtub said...
ReplyDelete[What do you mean by visual info]
The examples of sand dunes, tv static, dog poop, and possibly a child's scribble (dep on what it is) represent only visual information (something recognized by a viewer).
The Zodiac Killer note however, represents encoded information (a nonrandom sequencing of symbols (syntax), conveying meaning. The SETI project is looking for this very thing in electromagnetic waves from space, so they will know a deliberate signal from EMR static.
(something recognized by a viewer)
ReplyDeleteHow is that not all information then?
Here is the post I was talking about.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rationalskepticism.org/post26855.html?#p39
Bathtub said...
ReplyDelete[Misquote]
I got "just sit there" from your paragraph on LINES and SINES. Apologies if I misunderstood.
[Orchard example]
I don't know what you mean by the swamp, but I do use that expression. I don't offer it as a specific difficulty for evolution, but rather that it too, fits the evidence well.
"...sounds like you completely ignored the genetic portion of the video."
I had already commented on phylogenetic trees and ERVs from a creationist perspective and it doesn't seem it needed addressed from the video as well. The genetic phylogeny discussed from 9:00-9:30, to me are "just so" stories, until I see the actual gene map comparisons, and even then, lining them up and saying they form a line of succession first requires a presupposition that evolution happened, rather than creation.
Sorry, The Swamp is Ray's blog.
ReplyDeleteBathtub said...
ReplyDelete[Still no def on visual info]
An image or view. Simply something seen by one viewing it. Do you see what I mean by a difference between that and specifically encoded, syntactical info?
Bathtub said...
ReplyDelete"Here is the [information] post..."
I watched the vid. Love his accent and had a hearty laugh at his analysis of dog dung, but you can tell he's angry by his blasphemous avatar. Anyway, the first exhibits he offers, I count as evidence, which even if random, can offer a lot by way of analysis, but not by way of translation. The only exhibit he offered that meets the latter requirement is the last, which was a coded message that he referenced during discussion of Shannon/Kolmogrov information (which also appears to satisfy Gitt information requirements). That's one that can actually be decoded (versus only analyzed) to determine the message of the sender. If you are familiar with the CAD/CAM in industry, it gives us a great example for DNA/Protein building. The end product depends on the specificity of the encoded sequence.
That type of specificity always traces to an intelligent source. You might be interested in Antony Flew's position change from atheism to deism, based on the strengthening of the intelligent design argument based on more discoveries in science. Here's a wikipedia article on him - I know; accuracy not guaranteed.
Anyway, DNA encoded info theologically falls under general revelation in nature about our Creator, as opposed to specific revelation, where He gives us verbatim info in scripture.
Bathtub said...
ReplyDelete[The Swamp]
Interesting. How did it get that nickname?
"I watched the vid."
ReplyDeleteHuh? I linked to a forum post, not a video. You've lost me.
As for how the The Swamp got it's name, don't know it's before my time, but probably something to do with being a quagmire.
Bathtub said...
ReplyDelete[forum post, not a video]
The video entry in the discussion thread is dated March, 2010. Maybe after you visited? Hack sounds Scottish.