Can DNA information increase w/o intelligence?

Originally posted by Coletti
Is this your definition of information for this discussion?

You'll have to break it down for me a little.

I think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose - say for the growth of a particular type of musc ...[text shortened]... complex, but to what purpose? Functionally, they are identical.

Is this your definition of information for this discussion?

I did not make the original claim; I challenged it, and while challenging it, asked for the definition used to support the claim. No one provided one, but I was asked what I would use if I had to choose the definition. So I provided one. If you don't like it, you're free to offer another one that you feel would make the claim impossible to prove wrong.

I think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose - say for the growth of a particular type of muscle cell.

That sounds reasonable.

Do we know if all the genes are utilized. I understand there is an idea that much of the genes we have a filler. At least, we don't know what the purpose is. But I don't know what the current theory is.

If you aren't familiar with the basic concepts of genetics, then you shouldn't be making claims about whether information can increase or not via evolution. That is a scientific statement and people who know little about science should not be making such revolutionary scientific claims.

We have chromosomes in our cells. Chromosomes are single, long pieces of double stranded DNA which are wrapped around proteins for packaging purposes. Certain lengths of the DNA have the coding necessary to be transcribed, and are therefore transcribed into RNA molecules. Some of these RNA molecules are used directly, while many more get translated into proteins, which are the useful products for those particular sections of transcribed DNA. Those lengths of DNA which get transcribed are called genes.

There is much DNA between the genes that does not get transcribed - this may be what you are referring to as "filler". Also, there are parts of genes which get editted out later via post transcriptional modification of the RNA before the RNA gets translated into proteins. These are known as introns, and these may also be what you mean by "filler". If you want to exclude introns, that's perfectly reasonable; in fact I think it would be hard to defend a position which wanted to include them unless the body uses them for something. I don't think it does. So let's exclude introns.

So, the definition I think is most reasonable at this point is the number of base pairs contained within genes which gets transcribed (this excludes the 'filler' outside the genes but in the DNA), with all introns excluded.

Please note - I did not make the original claim, yet I am being asked to provide the definitions. You'd think those who made the claim would be willing to define their own terms! That's how scientific papers generally work...

I really hope no one attacks my challenge on the basis that I am using my own definition, since no one else is willing to offer one and I was asked to provide one by those defending the claim I am challenging! Such a criticism of my challenge would be really pathetic.

By the way, all the knowledge I mentioned here would be taught in any freshman level biology class. It's not advanced stuff.

What do you think, Coletti?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Is this your definition of information for this discussion?

I did not make the original claim; I challenged it, and while challenging it, asked for the definition used to support the claim. No one provided one, but I was asked what I would use if I had to choose the definition. So I provided one. If you don't like it, you're free to off ...[text shortened]... ny freshman level biology class. It's not advanced stuff.

What do you think, Coletti?


[/b]

If this is the direction we're going in, I'd like to mention ahead of time that a point mutation very easily transforms the material outside of genes into genes by introducing promoters.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Is this your definition of information for this discussion?

I did not make the original claim; I challenged it, and while challenging it, asked for the definition used to support the claim. No one provided one, but I was a ...[text shortened]... s. It's not advanced stuff.

What do you think, Coletti?


[/b]

I think I will ignore the parenthetic abuse ad hominem and stick with the useful technical information. I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism. I thought that was one of the functions of science - openness to constructive criticism.

So we have:

Those lengths of DNA which get transcribed are called genes.

and

the definition (of information)... is the number of base pairs contained within genes which gets transcribed (this excludes the 'filler' outside the genes but in the DNA), with all introns excluded.

And you agree that it is reasonable to "think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose."

So for clarification - do all the base pairs which are transcribed (as described and excluding introns) have a known purpose or function. Are we counting only those who's purpose we know, or are we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.

Originally posted by Coletti
I think I will ignore the parenthetic abuse ad hominem and stick with the useful technical information. I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism. I thought that was one of the functions of science - openness to constructive criticism.

So we have:

[b]Those lengths of DNA which get ...[text shortened]... ho's purpose we know, or are we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.

Genes also duplicate, and in the plant world entire genomes duplicate. This duplication is dead handy. Genic regions tend to be highly conserved; if a gene codes for and essential enzyme a point mutation could prove fatal, however where a copy exists one copy can mutat to a novel function leaving the functionality of the other copy intact. So the process goes something like this; gene is duplicated (transposed), one of the duplicates mutates and codes for a novel enzyme that in turn provides some new functionality for the organism making it fitter (or not) as the case may be.

If intelligent design is true how come the only way a dog can clean its arsehole is to use its tongue?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
...If intelligent design is true how come the only way a dog can clean its arsehole is to use its tongue?

Ha! What you really want to ask is why can't you. 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
Ha! What you really want to ask is why can't you. 🙂

Bill hicks springs to mind

Originally posted by Coletti
I think I will ignore the parenthetic abuse ad hominem and stick with the useful technical information. I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism. I thought that was o ...[text shortened]... we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.

Did I make an argument ad hominem? I try to avoid attacking people. I didn't mean to do so with my comment.

Let me ask you a question: do you know enough about genetics in order to defend the claim that the information content of DNA cannot increase without intelligence? If so, why are you asking me to teach you about how genetics works? If not, what basis do you have for making or defending the claim about whether intelligence can increase without intelligent intervention? I don't think this is an argument ad hominem. I haven't studied logic though. Maybe we can ask bbarr to referee?

I'm not sure why you think being the only one to offer a definition should exclude your definition to criticism.

I don't. I think your criticism was very apt. However, I was not the one who made the initial claim. Why am I defining the terms used in it?

So for clarification - do all the base pairs which are transcribed (as described and excluding introns) have a known purpose or function. Are we counting only those who's purpose we know, or are we simple counting them all and assuming they have a purpose.

This is totally irrelevant to the argument. Information has been defined, and I have shown that information content of DNA can increase via a point mutation which is totally undirected by intelligence. Therefore the initial claim is wrong. Would you like to try a different definition of information?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Bill hicks springs to mind

And Rodney Dangerfield

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Genes also duplicate, and in the plant world entire genomes duplicate. This duplication is dead handy. Genic regions tend to be highly conserved; if a gene codes for and essential enzyme a point mutation could prove fatal, however where a copy exists one copy can mutat to a novel function leaving the functionality of the other copy intact. So the proces ...[text shortened]... elligent design is true how come the only way a dog can clean its arsehole is to use its tongue?

This is a classic example of why it's really hard for me to believe anyone with any knowledge of genetics could make the claim about the impossibility of information increasing without intelligent intervention (II). Genes get copied, and they get mutated. The combination of the two means new genes get created. How is this not creation of information?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This is totally irrelevant to the argument. Information has been defined, and I have shown that information content of DNA can increase via a point mutation which is totally undirected by intelligence. Therefore the initial claim is wrong. Would you like to try a different definition of information?

Well the mutation should be functional for it to be information, otherwise it's random junk. That's the key to evolutionary theory - things evolve - not just mutate. A mutation could go in any direction. If an increase of information is an indication of evolution - it needs to move in a positive direction. It needs to be useful.

My problem is I don't completely disagree with you. I'm just arguing to better understand the mechanism - by working out what the flaws are. Such as what keeps things evolving instead of devolving. And how can we tell when a mutation really is positive.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This is a classic example of why it's really hard for me to believe anyone with any knowledge of genetics could make the claim about the impossibility of information increasing without intelligent intervention (II). Genes get copied, and they get mutated. The combination of the two means new genes get created. How is this not creation of information?

An argument ad hominem "is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself."

Now, if I have done this, there must be some idea that was stated, and I must have attacked the character or motives of the person who stated the idea. Can you clarify who stated what idea to which I responded with the argument ad hominem fallacy?

Originally posted by Coletti
Well the mutation should be functional for it to be information, otherwise it's random junk. That's the key to evolutionary theory - things evolve - not just mutate. A mutation could go in any direction. If an increase of information is an indication of evolution - it needs to move in a positive direction. It needs to be useful.

My problem is I don ...[text shortened]... s things evolving instead of devolving. And how can we tell when a mutation really is positive.

Oh. So you are not defending the initial claim? Would you clarify this?

Originally posted by Coletti
Well the mutation should be functional for it to be information, otherwise it's random junk. That's the key to evolutionary theory - things evolve - not just mutate. A mutation could go in any direction. If an increase of information i ...[text shortened]... evolving. And how can we tell when a mutation really is positive.

So the mutation must be functional for it to be information. How do we define 'functional'? We need a definition for which someone can find hard data to support the original claim. Otherwise there is no basis for the original claim, and it's entirely meaningless.

Suppose a hypothetical organism evolved a gene which encoded a protein which destroyed other enzymes like the DNA polymerases the organism needs to replicate it's genome. Does this gene have a function? Is does code for an enzyme which does something.

Sorry about spamming this thread. It's just that this is showing exactly why this claim is one of my pet peeves. I heard the claim for the first time and I thought to myself - how do I check this out? But I can't. There is no way to check it out because it's worded so vaguely that people who really want it to be true can claim any evidence I come up with doesn't count for some reason. It's too vague to be scientific. There's no way to investigate it because no one will define the key terms. Can you see my frustration, Coletti, and can you see why I have a hard time taking this claim seriously?

However what I do take seriously is the way this claim is affecting what the non scientists believe. To me it's a way of slick talking the ignorant into thinking ID must be true. This bothers me.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So the mutation must be functional for it to be information. How do we define 'functional'? We need a definition for which someone can find hard data to support the original claim. Otherwise there is no basis for the original cla ...[text shortened]... have a function? Is does code for an enzyme which does something.

I went back an checked the link you added (should have done that earlier) to see if I agreed with the "initial claim."

I guess we need to define an increase in informations so that the processes shows a clear mechanism that would take a life form from a simple celled creature to a complex creature (say from an amoeba to a cat). That means that unless we can show that the increase in information (however we define it) moves forward from a simple to complex life form - it does not show evolution.

Although the details are complex, the concept is fairly simple. Lets not forget the goal of evolution. If the details of genetic mutations are not clearly positive - there is no evidence of evolution.