Can DNA information increase w/o intelligence?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You see the various systems in a human just like a single cell too?
They each have all the same parts doing the same thing, the same
way?
Kelly

I find it really annoying when people answer my questions with questions. Would you clearly answer my question please? It seems as though you're trying to avoid answering it.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I find it really annoying when people answer my questions with questions. Would you clearly answer my question please? It seems as though you're trying to avoid answering it.

No problem, I'll go look for the question, but know I have asked more
than a few questions too. I have not complained they have not been
answered, but if you like I will.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I find it really annoying when people answer my questions with questions. Would you clearly answer my question please? It seems as though you're trying to avoid answering it.

They do not in the forms of a multi-celled creature, the cell may have
various parts that do some of the same things, and I stress the
word some. Such as eye sight, hearing, and are not present at least I
am not aware of them. The cell is highly complex, even functionally
complex too. So to rob a part of the cell to start adding other parts
that would become organs and so on would require such a great
amount of balance it is very problematic to say the least.

Not sure why you find questions answering questions annoying, it is
part of communicating.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No problem, I'll go look for the question, but know I have asked more
than a few questions too. I have not complained they have not been
answered, but if you like I will.
Kelly

I have answered at least some of your questions quite clearly and directly. For example, your question about how I meant the word 'up' earlier. You do ask a lot of questions, and many of them are questions I've answered elsewhere. However if there are any questions you do want answered, just remind me and I will make an effort to do so.

Originally posted by KellyJay
They do not in the forms of a multi-celled creature, the cell may have
various parts that do some of the same things, and I stress the
word some. Such as eye sight, hearing, and are not present at least I
am not aware of them. The cell is highly complex, even functionally
complex too. So to rob a part of the cell to start adding other parts
that would ...[text shortened]... sure why you find questions answering questions annoying, it is
part of communicating.
Kelly

Well, let me give you an example of how answering a question with a question fails to help communication:

Wife: ARE YOU CHEATING ON ME!?
Husband: Well, do you think I am? What evidence do you have to make you think you can ask that question?

Yes/No would help communication and would be far simpler to say than the questions the husband used. Clearly, the husband is avoiding the issue and not respecting his wife's intent in asking her question. He's shifting the focus to her - how dare she make such an accusation?! Yet he never says no first...Responding to questions with questions is often a means of avoiding answering the question and shifting the focus of the discussion away from the person who responded with the question. It is often evasive and manipulative.

I still don't think you've answered the question really. Does functional complexity only apply to multicellular organisms? Wait, you've already basically answered that. Never mind. If a cell can be functionally complex, then being multicellular is not necessary for functional complexity. Your mentioning multicellularity seems irrelevant to this discussion.

You wrote

They do not in the forms of a multi-celled creature, the cell may have various parts that do some of the same things, and I stress the
word some

That sounds like it could be a "yes" and it could be a "no". It's pretty ambiguous. Could you clarify your answer for me? It would help if you clarified your definition of 'systems'. One standard biological definition is a group of organs which work together, but I don't think that's what you mean.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You see the various systems in a human just like a single cell too?
They each have all the same parts doing the same thing, the same
way?
Kelly

No, because cells aren't multicellular, and therefore cannot have organs. Without organs, an organism cannot have organ systems.

Humans and cells have some of the same parts doing the same thing the same way. There are differences as well. So no, they don't have all the same parts.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, because cells aren't multicellular, and therefore cannot have organs. Without organs, an organism cannot have organ systems.

Humans and cells have some of the same parts doing the same thing the same way. There are differences as well. So no, they don't have [b]all the same parts.[/b]

I've not forgotten this, will get back to it shortly.
Kelly

Dj2becker opened a new thread the topic of which is to ask

"Can information increase without intelligent intervention?"

The address to this thread is

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=24485&page=1

Because of this new thread, I am bumping this one. My requests for definitions have not been satisfied and so I still say any claim about whether information can or cannot increase in the absence of intelligent intervention is without any support.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I find it really annoying when people answer my questions with questions. Would you clearly answer my question please? It seems as though you're trying to avoid answering it.

Why does it bother you when people anwer you questions with questions? Hmmm?? 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
Why does it bother you when people anwer you questions with questions? Hmmm?? 🙂

Take a look at my post higher on the page with the little wife and husband skit. It explains why it's annoying.

Responding to questions with questions is often a means of avoiding answering the question and shifting the focus of the discussion away from the person who responded with the question. It is often evasive and manipulative.

Do it again and I will kick you in the nads!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Take a look at my post higher on the page with the little wife and husband skit. It explains why it's annoying.

Responding to questions with questions is often a means of avoiding answering the question and shifting the focus of the discussion away from the person who responded with the question. It is often evasive and manipulative.

Do it again and I will kick you in the nads!

Maybe I should kick you in the nads anyway! HIYAAA!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Maybe I should kick you in the nads anyway! HIYAAA!

😲 Yoow! 😲

Here's a recent addition to what "complexity" means:

When starting from nothing and ending with something, this is certainly the case of "result in more complexity".

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=34667&page=3

Still, the definition is very poor. Does complexity require the creation of matter? I doubt that was what was meant.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Dj2becker opened a new thread the topic of which is to ask

[b]"Can information increase without intelligent intervention?"

The address to this thread is

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=24485&page=1

Because of this new thread, I am bumping this one. My requests for definitions have not been satisfied a ...[text shortened]... mation can or cannot increase in the absence of intelligent intervention is without any support.[/b]

Sorry if this has already been said, it is a long thread and I am feeling lazy but from your saying neither position has any support I will assume it hasn't been said yet:

Information most certainly CAN increase in the absence of intelligent intervention.

First, for the purposes of this question I define information as any genetic material that is in a functional part of the genome, either coding or regulating. There is a lot of junk DNA which does nothing, if that were to become active through a mutation, I would regard that as an increase in information. Genetic mutations can increase, decrease, and change the information of your genome.

I defend this definition with the fact that a change to something's functional genome will often, but not always (the genetic code is degenerate, multiple sequences code for the same amino acid) result in some change in the organism, large or small. Actually, I am adding that something only constitutes a change in information if it changes the function in some way, silent mutations don't count.

So under this definition, information can be added in many ways.
A cell's transcription machinery can make a mistake, causing a mutation when they copy the DNA. Base pairs can either be substituted, deleted, or new ones added.
Retroviruses insert their genetic material into the genome, this could itself be considered a gain of information, but a defective virus is even better because it will most likely not encode anything that will make a virus and kill the cell.

So your cells can either add information to themselves by accident, or viruses, which most scientists do not consider alive, and are certainly not intelligent, can add information to a cell.

Information is anything that can be used to distinguish some states of systems as being more or less likely than others.

For a shuffled deck of cards, you have no information about the second card, which is to say, you cannot distinguish any possible property values of the second card as being more or less likely than other property values. You can't say whether it is more likely a heart or a club, a 2 or a 7.

But after examining the top one you have received information bearing on the likelihood that the next card is a club, a 2, or the Jack of hearts. Because of this increase in information, your information-based beliefs are now more likely to be correct. But if your beliefs about the second card are not based in information, the new information doesn't help improve the accuracy of your beliefs.

Information is our most reliable instrument for navigating the seas of uncertainty.

Doctor Scribbles

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=42886&page=8

Thanks for the input, Dr.