In the Beginning was Information.

[Seeker]

Thanks for the support, guys. I try my best. Actually, I see NO erros in the two posts in question now. I must have gone insane. lol

[DaveB]

A 1997 book by Werner Gitt. Is it worth reading, or there are, in your opinion, better and more up-to-date books to be purchased within this type of book? What would you reccomend I buy on the topic of 'information' issues?

I'd recommend 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen Meyer.

[DaveB]

First, Gitt is an engineer not a scientist, and approaches the concept of information very mechanistically from a Creationist assertion of a Divine perspective and not a scientific perspective. It is a simple straight forward literal Biblical view without any reference to science.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/in-six-days/werner-gitt-information-science/

For me, as an information scientist, the key question is the source of information. Regarding the length of the creation days, there is only one information source, and that is the Bible. In the Bible, God tells us that He created everything in six days.

© Copyright Original Source

You are quote-mining Gitt. What you quoted is related specifically to the question of the length of the days of creation. He is not stating that all information comes from the Bible.

[DaveB]

The fact that it is not accepted by anyone else is again an argument from authority. The question is: does Gitt's arguments stand or fall on their own merits? Now I agree that maybe ''most were circular and all were scientifically worthless'', because he defined 5 levels of information: statistics, sintax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. However, I came lo learn that only the first one really applies to DNA (which is Shannon's definition).

Here's a paper that has a different opinion. I think the truth is that we've only begun to scratch the surface in our understanding of the information stored in DNA.

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...1999.tb08916.x

The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics, and Semantics

Since the discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953, many biologists have employed language as a useful metaphor to describe certain aspects of molecular biologic phenomena. 7-9 But recently it was postulated that language is more than just a metaphor and that linguistics provides a fundamental principle to account for the structure and function of the cell. This conclusion is supported by the facts (1) that cells use a language, called cell language or cellese, defined as “a self‐organizing system of molecules, some of which encode, act as signs for, or trigger, gene‐directed cell processes,” and (2) that cell language has molecular counterparts to 10 of the 13 design features of human language (humanese) characterized by Hockett and Lyon, thus suggesting an isomorphism between cellese and humanese. 10, 11 Because cellese must be transmitted from one generation to the next, it must be encoded in DNA. Therefore, the main objective of this communication is to characterize the structure and function of DNA based on linguistic principles.

I should also mention that the information in DNA, specifically the genes, goes far beyond "Shannon information".

[DaveB]

Don't really like to play Lee Merill style, but why? Let me state the argument in another way: ''There are evolutionary scientists who agree that DNA has the characteristics of a code (message), but claim that the agencies involved were not intentional. The creationist argument is that such codes require intelligence, as far as observation goes.

In short, an argument by analogy. DNA is arbitrarily declared to be the only exception to such 'codes'. I am only playing Devil's Advocate here, by the way.

If someone says that DNA is a code, then they are mistaken. DNA is a storage medium that stores
coded information in the same sense that a computer tape holds coded information, but DNA
itself is not a code.

The information that is stored in a gene is coded in the Genetic code. A code (or code set), like Morse code or
computer code (there are many different computer codes like ASCII or EBCDIC) has limited
characters, like dots and dashes or ones and zeros. Different sequences of the characters
represent something else, like a letter of the alphabet. So in Morse code, "dot dot dash" represents "U".
You can take the characters that represent a letter and rearrange them and they will represent a different letter.
So, you can take the "dot dot dash" that represents "U" and rearrange them to "dash dot dot"
and it then represents "D". It's the sequence of the characters that matters.

The Genetic code is no different. The characters of the code are the 4 chemical bases that are a part of each
nucleotide. Different sequences of the bases (a codon is an sequence of 3 bases) represent an amino acid.
Like the example above, you can take the bases from a sequence that represents one amino acid and
rearrange them to form a sequence that represents an entirely different amino acid.

[DaveB]

Actually no, statistics is not a scientific argument based on a hypothesis that may be falsified. The best statistics can predict is probability, and probability as used by Gitt cannot be the basis to falsify a hypothesis for Intelligent Design.


In another thread a while back I documented the terrible misuse of statistics by Creationists. In summary the Creationists tried to use statistics to demonstrated the whole chain of the probability of cause and effect events, and in reality it can only apply to the probability of each event.

Can you explain these two statements a little better? I can't decipher either one.

[DaveB]

This is another false claim based on equivocation over the definition of "code". There are naturally occurring codes which don't require an intelligence to encode the information. That includes the widths of tree rings which encode information about the local climate when the rings grew, and spectral lines in starlight which encode information about the chemical composition of the star. DNA is another naturally occurring process which encodes information about a creature's environment.

Actually, the equivocation here is over the word information.


From Websters:

2a(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction

b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or
arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program)
that produce specific effects

Your examples of tree rings and spectral lines are examples of "2a" information, while the information coded in
DNA is an example of "2b" information.

There are no sequences or arrangements of tree rings or spectral lines that produce anything, unlike
the sequence of amino acids produced when the sequence of bases in a gene are transcribed/translated.

The only codes which require intelligence are those which use arbitrary symbols as abstractions for other values - things like Morse Code or computer code. That does not include DNA which is a chemical process that naturally encodes information with no abstraction or arbitrary symbols anywhere. Merely being a "code" is not an indication of intelligence.

The arbitrary representation is the relationship between codon and amino acid. The comparison of the Genetic code to Morse code is a valid one and was used by none other than Francis Crick.

And, what do you mean by "DNA which is a chemical process"?

[DaveB]

I agree. DNA is a molecule with chemical reactions. The reactions are big and complex but they are nothing more than chemical reactions nonetheless. Nothing of which is required by ''intelligence''.

BTW, thanks for being the only one to answer my questions.

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA is a molecule with chemical reactions."?

DNA is basically inert. It is copied by proteins. It is transcribed by proteins. It is repaired by proteins.

It doesn't do anything by itself.

[HMS_Beagle]

Actually, the equivocation here is over the word information.


From Websters:

2a(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction

b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or
arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program)
that produce specific effects

Your examples of tree rings and spectral lines are examples of "2a" information, while the information coded in
DNA is an example of "2b" information.

There are no sequences or arrangements of tree rings or spectral lines that produce anything, unlike
the sequence of amino acids produced when the sequence of bases in a gene are transcribed/translated.

Big time fail there Dave. Spectral lines and tree rings do indeed encode information which may be recovered by an external observer later. That's information in the "2b" sense.

The arbitrary representation is the relationship between codon and amino acid.

It's not arbitrary. You can't decide to have any codon create any amino acid on a whim like you can arbitrarily make any symbol in Morse represent any letter. The genetic code exhibits degeneracy in that sometimes more than one codon may produce the same amino acid but that's not the same as arbitrary.

The comparison of the Genetic code to Morse code is a valid one and was used by none other than Francis Crick.

Why do ID-Creationists never understand that analogies aren't evidence?

And, what do you mean by "DNA which is a chemical process"?

All of life is a big, hugely complicated chemical reaction but a chemical reaction never the less.

[HMS_Beagle]

I'd recommend 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen Meyer.

Why? It's a horrible piece of anti-science ID-Creationist garbage almost universally rejected by the scientific community. It's full of vague undefined ID-Creationist buzz-terms like "complex specified information" which Meyer leans on heavily to sway scientifically illiterate laymen. Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher and his lack of basic knowledge about biology and genetics are well documented. Like other ID-Creationist books of that time it's one more big "this is SOOOOOOOO complex, it must be DESIGNED" argument from personal ignorance. Of course Meyer's "Designer" is the Christian God.

Note that Meyer followed up this stinker with an even more wretched steaming pile of science-free propaganda with Darwin's Doubt. Pushing the DI's "Wedge Strategy" to get the Christian God sneaked back into public school science classrooms has been Meyer's only goal since day one.

[shunyadragon]

You are quote-mining Gitt. What you quoted is related specifically to the question of the length of the days of creation. He is not stating that all information comes from the Bible.

Not quote mining at all. Gitt believes all information comes from God, as recording in only 'one information source' the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

I'd recommend 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen Meyer.

Not really related to Gitt, but it is another view of Intelligent Design, and not worth the ink and paper it is printed with, as far as legitimate science goes.

[DaveB]

I agree. DNA is a molecule with chemical reactions. The reactions are big and complex but they are nothing more than chemical reactions nonetheless. Nothing of which is required by ''intelligence''.

BTW, thanks for being the only one to answer my questions.

Seeker,

Here is a short animated video. It does a good job of showing how the sequential information in DNA is used to produce proteins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BwWavExcFI

Keep in mind that all of the proteins and RNA involved in the transcription and translation processes were themselves produced by the same processes.

[DaveB]

Big time fail there Dave. Spectral lines and tree rings do indeed encode information which may be recovered by an external observer later. That's information in the "2b" sense.

That's some pretty creative reading comprehension. There is nothing about recovery by an external observer in the 2b definition. That falls under 2a - knowledge gained through research.

It's not arbitrary. You can't decide to have any codon create any amino acid on a whim like you can arbitrarily make any symbol in Morse represent any letter. The genetic code exhibits degeneracy in that sometimes more than one codon may produce the same amino acid but that's not the same as arbitrary.

If two people agree to use a different set of dots and dashes to represent letters, then they are no longer using Morse code. They are making up their own code. The mapping of sequences of dots and dashes to letters was only arbitrary when the Morse code was developed. It isn't arbitrary now.

Why do ID-Creationists never understand that analogies aren't evidence?

Evidence of what?

Crick's comparison of the Genetic code to Morse code is saying "these two things are similar in principle". They are both codes.

All of life is a big, hugely complicated chemical reaction but a chemical reaction never the less.

You don't seem to understand what a chemical reaction is. Maybe you should go back and find a 9th grade chemistry textbook.

[DaveB]

Why? It's a horrible piece of anti-science ID-Creationist garbage almost universally rejected by the scientific community. It's full of vague undefined ID-Creationist buzz-terms like "complex specified information" which Meyer leans on heavily to sway scientifically illiterate laymen. Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher and his lack of basic knowledge about biology and genetics are well documented. Like other ID-Creationist books of that time it's one more big "this is SOOOOOOOO complex, it must be DESIGNED" argument from personal ignorance. Of course Meyer's "Designer" is the Christian God.

Note that Meyer followed up this stinker with an even more wretched steaming pile of science-free propaganda with Darwin's Doubt. Pushing the DI's "Wedge Strategy" to get the Christian God sneaked back into public school science classrooms has been Meyer's only goal since day one.

Meyer has a PhD from Cambridge in History and the Philosophy of Science, not simply Philosophy. So while he doesn't do primary research, he's very qualified to review the literature and understand the "big picture" of what science has really been able to accomplish in the area of explaining the origin of life or the Cambrian Explosion, which are discussed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt. He does a good job of explaining the issue of information from the ID perspective and also the inability of science to come up with an explanation.