Re: DNA carries information


Dick wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 01:02:09 -0700, "wade" <wade.hines@xxxxxxx> wrote:


Friar Broccoli wrote:
hersheyhv wrote:

[extensive snipping]


Friar Broccoli wrote:

DNA carries information like the orbits of planets carry information.

Planetary orbits don't make copies of themselves or their properties.

.

IOW, DNA only contains "information" when it is in the context of a
living cell or replicating entity such as a virus. The same DNA as a
simple chemical in a test tube contains no "information".

This is similar to the question. Suppose I discover the formula for
converting lead into gold. I record the formula, and encode it with
a password using an unbreakable encryption scheme, destroying all
other copies. Dr. Know then knocks me on the head causing me
to forget both the formula and the password. Does my encoded
message still contain info?

I don't know the answer, but it is probably the same as for the free
DNA strand which also cannot be read.

So if an alternative set of chemistry exists to decode nucleotide
triplets, or maybe quartets, into amino acids to make proteins,
then then DNA that works with that contains information even
if the decoding machinery is lost of broken. So if a system
could exist to decode some DNA sequence, the DNA sequence
contains information.

And bascially, any long DNA sequence could have a some
decoding scheme to turn it into another message just as
any long series of bits could be used with a paired encryption
scheme to contain a somewhat smaller messsage.

And it doesn't need to be DNA but could be any polymer
that can be used for encoding. It could be RNA or PNA
or a polysaccaride.

You certainly have a knowledge of the subject that I could never hope
to have.

Not so. And I was merely providing the logical extension of
the original claims of FB using "information" in the sense
he seems to be advocating. I don't find that usage to be
useful however and was trying to point out that applying
it in a consistent way across more cases than he had
considered tends to work against his earlier "conclusions".

One problem with the big words, do they convey information.
Of course you can reply my ignorance does not remove the information
contained in the technical jargon.

The response to that observation, depends on intent. If you mean to
share your "information" with only your peers, then you have
transferred information. If you mean to inform the man in the street,
then you failed to transfer information.

I've had a bit of a beef with some folks I work with over what
they call "knowledge". Some might call it information. The
people in question work in fields often labeled as some
brand of informatics.

I'm opposed to calling some computer stored information knowledge.
I prefer to restrict "knowledge" to something that a person has.
(Here, I tread heavily and ignorantly on milennia of philosophers
rending, mending and crafting thoughts on epistemology.)

An important reason to do this is to help emphasize that lots of
raw or processed data doesn't mean much unless you can interface
it to a person who can usefully process it. So, it isn't knowledge
until it is inside someones head. The process of becoming
knowledge requires conversion of raw data to information and
then the information being filed, abstracted and cross associated
with models and catelogues of information.

DNA contains "information" for its intended users. Those users know
how, what and when to recover the "Information" thus, for the cell
components, information exists in the DNA. Until recently, there was
no information for human beings.

There be sins of anthropomophism here. It's fine to use such language
for poetic effect but what does the metaphore of "know" mean
when applied to molecules? The level of predestination here is
nearly transparent. Any fascination in the specificity of the chemistry
is merely a statement about the observer, not the process.
In other words, ascribing properties to chemicals, where some
carry information and some don't, only says something about how an
individual is willing to corrupt and specialize the meaning of
"information". It doesn't say anything useful about the molecules,
they are just behaving like atoms do when bonded to each other.

Which leads to the question, "how, through trial and error, does a
device accumulate sequences of acid which can only be made into
"information" after the process is complete?"

Natural selection. Chemical reactions that lead to products
that somehow lead to more of the same reactants and products
persist long enough to be observed more often than those
that don't.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where does information come from?
    ... describe the sequences of bases in DNA. ... The fact is that the DNA sequence contains in a very abstract ... You can describe blood vessels as pipes. ... that genes cause the expression of certain molecular building blocks, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DNA carries information
    ... living cell or replicating entity such as a virus. ... a password using an unbreakable encryption scheme, ... DNA strand which also cannot be read. ... could exist to decode some DNA sequence, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution of man
    ... Then why isn't it common to other ape ... of an RNA replication in a DNA sequence. ... Please explain how you think that RNA replication of a DNA sequence ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Paper: Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in Arabidopsis
    ... > Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 W. State ... > in predictable segregation patterns of differing alleles. ... > is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: DNA carries information
    ... a password using an unbreakable encryption scheme, ... DNA strand which also cannot be read. ... if the decoding machinery is lost of broken. ... could exist to decode some DNA sequence, ...
    (talk.origins)