D
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interesting stuff. I've seen a lot of debates with yahoos yammering about information, usually I think about its creation being impossible by evolution or maybe by anything unguided, I think that's what you're saying with your 'no new information in DNA'. I don't recall their arguments, mostly I remember they all sounded incoherent. Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees or it's too bloody obvious, are you saying there's no information in DNA, you only get the information when you're looking at it as a code when in reality it's just a molecule doing chemistry? I guess I'm not seeing where the 'new' fits in.
Yes, there's information in DNA but no, this doesn't mean it contains a message. I treat this in another post, which a scan forward tells me you've read.Interesting stuff. I've seen a lot of debates with yahoos yammering about information, usually I think about its creation being impossible by evolution or maybe by anything unguided, I think that's what you're saying with your 'no new information in DNA'. I don't recall their arguments, mostly I remember they all sounded incoherent. Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees or it's too bloody obvious, are you saying there's no information in DNA, you only get the information when you're looking at it as a code when in reality it's just a molecule doing chemistry? I guess I'm not seeing where the 'new' fits in.
I think too much focus on the label is dangerous. Digital is a good word for something that can exist only in a well-specified range of discrete states.I think Dawkins should have used 'discreet' instead of 'digital', maybe he thought more folks would get digital.
I've read some of Chaitin's work, yes. Some fascinating stuff.Mentioning 'memetics' made me think how that would necessarily involve a lot of emetics, I clearly have a warped map.
In your "Who Put it There? Information in DNA." you mention Kolmogorov complexity, there's a guy who is also associated with that work, Gregory Chaitin, have you heard of him, he's done a lot of stuff on incompleteness and information etc? He's really fascinating and has a fair number of youtube videos available, I really enjoy listening to him, they're well worth watching and I read a great book of his Meta Math!: The Quest for Omega, can't say I understood all of it but it was still a great read.
Maybe I'm missing something. I would have to disagree pretty adamantly that there's not a message in DNA, it's a medium for storage of information which is in part how it gets transferred, there's even lots of error correction involved. I think the creationists' problem involves whether there's meaning in the message and god I sure as hell don't want to get into 'meaning', it's a rabbit-hole quagmire too deep for my poor brain. Are you taking 'message; as something that requires meaning, or intent or agency or teleology? Bacteria seem to signal to or communicate with each other, is that a message, can a bacteria mean something? And this could veer off into semiotics which is also a brain-hurting rabbit hole with many shared tunnels "There is nobody trying to tell us anything here", and you can start getting bogged down with 'trying'. Isn't Dawkin's 'designoid' idea useful against the 'who put it there' arguments? I see evolution, really natural selection, as basically blind trial and error, no intent or agency, which is kinda how we've learned, or created new information, a big chunk of the stuff we know.Yes, there's information in DNA but no, this doesn't mean it contains a message. I treat this in another post, which a scan forward tells me you've read.
I think too much focus on the label is dangerous. Digital is a good word for something that can exist only in a well-specified range of discrete states.
I've read some of Chaitin's work, yes. Some fascinating stuff.
Maybe I'm missing something. I would have to disagree pretty adamantly that there's not a message in DNA, ...
Except that it isn't. It's a molecule, and it responds chemically to its environment commensurate with the laws of chemistry. That it exists in well-defined states means that we can use it to store information in the same way that we do with 1s and 0s, and for exactly the same reason. That doesn't mean the 1s and 0s themselves are a message, nor does it mean that of DNA. There's no meaning, just chemistry.I would have to disagree pretty adamantly that there's not a message in DNA, it's a medium for storage of information which is in part how it gets transferred, there's even lots of error correction involved.
What would it look like if DNA was a code then? What would be the difference?To the extent that there is really such thing as the genetic code, it's all the stuff we glom onto the molecule to aid our understanding. DNA itself isn't a code, and it contains no messages. It doesn't tell the body how to develop, it simply reacts commensurate with global rules of chemistry to its environment, which includes the way other codons are reacting in the vicinity, all of which adds up to a process resulting in a body. This doesn't require the sending and receiving of messages, it just happens, in exactly the same way that the foam volcano just happens when you introduce a mento to a bottle of diet coke.
That's a lovely question.What would it look like if DNA was a code then? What would be the difference?
See below please.So what's the message?
See below please.
Maybe I'm missing something. I would have to disagree pretty adamantly that there's not a message in DNA, it's a medium for storage of information which is in part how it gets transferred, there's even lots of error correction involved. I think the creationists' problem involves whether there's meaning in the message and god I sure as hell don't want to get into 'meaning', it's a rabbit-hole quagmire too deep for my poor brain. Are you taking 'message; as something that requires meaning, or intent or agency or teleology? Bacteria seem to signal to or communicate with each other, is that a message, can a bacteria mean something? And this could veer off into semiotics which is also a brain-hurting rabbit hole with many shared tunnels "There is nobody trying to tell us anything here", and you can start getting bogged down with 'trying'. Isn't Dawkin's 'designoid' idea useful against the 'who put it there' arguments? I see evolution, really natural selection, as basically blind trial and error, no intent or agency, which is kinda how we've learned, or created new information, a big chunk of the stuff we know.
What would it look like if DNA was a code then? What would be the difference?
This is going to lead into things that get messy, where what is metaphor and what is literal can confuse. Questions like what do genes do as in how are they used, and is a message something more than transmission of information. The information in DNA is transferred to mitochondria so they can make proteins. and also it's used to transfer the information from mommy and daddy to create a junior. Is that a message? It seems like it to me, but what do I know, I'm from Texas.Except that it isn't. It's a molecule, and it responds chemically to its environment commensurate with the laws of chemistry. That it exists in well-defined states means that we can use it to store information in the same way that we do with 1s and 0s, and for exactly the same reason. That doesn't mean the 1s and 0s themselves are a message, nor does it mean that of DNA. There's no meaning, just chemistry.
To the extent that there is really such thing as the genetic code, it's all the stuff we glom onto the molecule to aid our understanding. DNA itself isn't a code, and it contains no messages. It doesn't tell the body how to develop, it simply reacts commensurate with global rules of chemistry to its environment, which includes the way other codons are reacting in the vicinity, all of which adds up to a process resulting in a body. This doesn't require the sending and receiving of messages, it just happens, in exactly the same way that the foam volcano just happens when you introduce a mento to a bottle of diet coke.
The right up there ^^^ the above below.I read the whole paragraph before asking.
I've read it again twice, but I see no answer to my question: what's the message in DNA?
I think the real problem here is in the way you're using 'information', which I think you're treating as something intrinsic. Information is in many cases entirely extrinsic. That is, information is something we take away from it, not something it has in and of itself....snip...
I think the real problem here is in the way you're using 'information', which I think you're treating as something intrinsic. Information is in many cases entirely extrinsic. That is, information is something we take away from it, not something it has in and of itself.
Your first reply was too soon, I hadn't written it yet so there wasn't a 'below' yet, so I think you looked up. The message is in the arrangement of ACTGs that get's transferred via mRNA, which is 'messenger' RNA There may be disconnects here, I don't know if we have a definition of what constitutes a message. I've said it's information and its transfer, but maybe that's incorrect. What's the difference between information and message?Are we playing Cluedo or something?
Can you just answer my question? If you feel like you've answered it in that paragraph and I am not seeing it, then can you extract the part which answers my question so I can see what it is you want me to take from that paragraph?