Can information increase?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How come you haven't resolved my questions from the original thread about this topic, dj? Why did you make this new thread instead?

I am sorry. I was on vacation when you started the other thread. What questions were not resolved?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am sorry. I was on vacation when you started the other thread. What questions were not resolved?

Well, to start with, how is 'information' defined? We can't decide if information can increase unless we know what it is.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Well, to start with, how is 'information' defined? We can't decide if information can increase unless we know what it is.

You obviously don't seem satisfied with Dr. Werner Gitt's definition. Do you have a better definition?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You obviously don't seem satisfied with Dr. Werner Gitt's definition. Do you have a better definition?

Definitions are arbritrary. Therefore Gitt's definition is perfectly valid as is any other, though he does not clearly state what his definition is. All I can tell is that he defines information as something that comes from an intelligent source.

If you are going by Werner Gitt's definition, then no, information can not increase without intelligent intervention, because by definition information must come from an intelligent source. However whether or not information by this definition exists in any particular system, such as DNA, is unclear.

We've been over this a few times, dj. Do you not understand my point?

I do not feel Gitt's definition covers all reasonable uses of the word 'information'. Do I have a definition I like better? Not particularly. I can make one up though if you want. How about this:

Information is a word that is used in many contexts and has different definitions depending on the context. In the context of DNA, information is the number of base pairs that get transcribed excluding introns.

By this definition, information can increase without intelligent intervention. A point mutation to a region outside of a gene can add a start codon to that region, causing it to be transcribed when it wasn't before.

Now please, if you don't understand my point, let's talk about it now. If you do, then stop bringing up Gitt's definition. And, please don't answer my questions with questions. It's evasive and manipulative.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Definitions are arbritrary. Therefore Gitt's definition is perfectly valid as is any other, though he does not clearly state what his definition is. All I can tell is that he defines information as something that comes from an inte ...[text shortened]... swer my questions with questions. It's evasive and manipulative.

Therefore Gitt's definition is perfectly valid as is any other, though he does not clearly state what his definition is.

As far as I know he clearly states his definition.

However whether or not information by this definition exists in any particular system, such as DNA, is unclear.

Would you mind clarifying how it is unclear?

I do not feel Gitt's definition covers all reasonable uses of the word 'information'.

Any specific reason why?

I can make one up though if you want.

Does that help? Because basically anybody can then make up a definition for anything.

Information is a word that is used in many contexts and has different definitions depending on the context. In the context of DNA, information is the number of base pairs that get transcribed excluding introns.

Do you have any source for this definition?

By this definition, information can increase without intelligent intervention. A point mutation to a region outside of a gene can add a start codon to that region, causing it to be transcribed when it wasn't before.

Is it correct to say that long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism? Souldn't the process be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today? Shouldn't there be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population? Moreover, shouldn't there not be just one, but a great many such series?

Shouldn't the chain be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context? Should this not be so in order for the possibilty to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill? Shouldn't one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum? As far as I know this has never been shown to be possible. Or am I wrong?

This topic is discussed in more depth if you would like to refer to this site:http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

In all possibility the genomes of animals may very well be at local optimums. In fact it would be very strange if animal genomes were globally optimal.

Is it correct to say that long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism? Souldn't the process be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today? Shouldn't there be a long series of possible mutation ...[text shortened]... d in more depth if you would like to refer to this site:http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
[/b]

As far as I know he clearly states his definition.

Can you show me in which sentence he does so? I haven't read his book, but we've had this discussion before and I don't remember any clear definition being discussed, though that was the topic at hand.

Would you mind clarifying how it is unclear?

If information is defined as coming from an intelligent source, then one must demonstrate that DNA came from an intelligent source before one can label it's contents information. However from what I can tell Gitt does not do this; he just says the equivalent of "obviously DNA has information!"

Any specific reason why?

Sure. If I look at a pile of rocks, the number of rocks in the pile is information. This is a reasonable statement. No intelligence was required to count out how many rocks would go into that pile. The fact that the sun gives off light is information. No intelligence necessarily had to force the sun to give off light. It just does. However, not only is the fact that the sun gives off light information, but the wavelengths of light that are absent provide information about the elemental contents of the star. There are no sun elves (necessarily) that make sure that certain wavelengths do not get emitted.

Does that help? Because basically anybody can then make up a definition for anything.

That is correct. That's how definitions work. Once you've defined your terms, you can then go on to make an argument that includes those terms.

Do you have any source for this definition?

No. I told you, I made it up. If you don't like mine, then provide another. The argument Gitt used failed because it is unclear whether his definition of information exists in DNA, and his argument required his definition of information to exist in DNA. His argument as far as I could tell was "DNA has information, therefore DNA came from an intelligent source" - but information was defined as something coming from an intelligent source. The weak point is his assumption that DNA has information by his definition.

You're trying to get me to debate a website again, which is something I refuse to do, so I won't respond to the rest of your post which is a slightly modified cut and paste job.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]As far as I know he clearly states his definition.

Can you show me in which sentence he does so? I haven't read his book, but we've had this discussion before and I don't remember any clear definition being discussed, though that was the topic at hand.

Would you mind clarifying how it is unclear?

If information is defined as ...[text shortened]... do, so I won't respond to the rest of your post which is a slightly modified cut and paste job.[/b]

what do you have about PNA ?

Originally posted by frogstomp
what do you have about PNA ?

What about PNA?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What about PNA?

"A proposed alternative to RNA in an "RNA World" is the peptide nucleic acid, PNA. PNA is more stable than RNA and appears to be more readily synthesised in prebiotic conditions, especially where the synthesis of ribose and adding phosphate groups are problematic"

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/RNA_world_hypothesis

I remember you mentioning this possibility

Originally posted by frogstomp
"A proposed alternative to RNA in an "RNA World" is the peptide nucleic acid, PNA. PNA is more stable than RNA and appears to be more readily synthesised in prebiotic conditions, especially where the synthesis of ribose and adding phos ...[text shortened]... ld_hypothesis

I remember you mentioning this possibility

Oh right. I've heard hypotheses in which self replicating proteins are precursors to nucleic acids. That's perfectly possible. I don't "have" anything about it though. I haven't really looked into it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Therefore Gitt's definition is perfectly valid as is any other, though he does not clearly state what his definition is.

As far as I know he clearly states his definition.

However whether or not information by this defini ...[text shortened]... ike to refer to this site:http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

The term "beneficial " implies a preferred direction. Natural selection only is based on survivability of the mutation. The actual cause of the mutation is not settled science, there seems to be some form of LaMarckian mechanism preparing the organism for a radiation dose to "burn" it into the DNA.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Can information increase without intelligent intervention?

Not on this bored

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]As far as I know he clearly states his definition.

Can you show me in which sentence he does so? I haven't read his book, but we've had this discussion before and I don't remember any clear definition being discussed, though that was the topic at hand.

Would you mind clarifying how it is unclear?

If information is defined as ...[text shortened]... do, so I won't respond to the rest of your post which is a slightly modified cut and paste job.[/b]

You're trying to get me to debate a website again, which is something I refuse to do, so I won't respond to the rest of your post which is a slightly modified cut and paste job.

So if I cite an expert's statement from a cited website in the field we are discussing you refuse to respond? Shame...