Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We Have a Live One, Folks — Information Redux

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

My first post on UD, a mere 6 weeks ago, covered some basic principles about information.

Specifically, I addressed the misunderstandings of those who deny that there is anything special about the information contained in, say, DNA, as opposed to a pile of rocks or Saturn’s rings.  We had a very productive discussion, with a number of issues explored.  (Incidentally, I used the word “contain” as a shorthand way of expressing what Mung suggested we call “sequences of symbols” that “represent information.”  I’m fine with that longer formulation, as we are saying the same thing substantively.  Any nuance there isn’t germane to the point of today’s brief post.)

As we were winding up the thread, Mung asked if I had any sources of people who espoused the “information everywhere” view.  Unfortunately, I haven’t kept track of all the times I’ve heard this issue, though a number of other commenters on the thread indicated they had been exposed to similar claims from the anti-ID side.

Well, fast forward to today.  On vjtorley’s recent thread about RNA, the issue of information content came up.

Evolve claimed to Upright Biped, in part:

Your mud is nothing but a collection of molecules. So is life. Your mud has chemistry, so does life. How did inanimate chemistry (found in mud) transform into biochemistry (found in life) is all that needs to be figured out.

To which I responded, in part:

False. Blatantly, patently, utterly false.

Life is most certainly not “nothing but a collection of molecules.”

Evolve also asserted:

Creationists are likening biochemistry (which is perceived as information in life) to man-made codes like computer software and language. They, as a group, seem incapable of realizing that computer software and human language lack any chemistry whatsoever!

To which I responded:

No-one has to pretend that they perceive information in life. It is there. Objectively so. And things like the genetic code were not made up by creationists. It is called a code because it is one.

As to your last sentence, you are demonstrating that you have virtually no grasp of the issues at hand. The question is not whether chemistry is involved. Everyone knows it is. Everyone (who has any understanding of what they are talking about) also knows that simple “chemistry” on its own explains neither the origin of life nor its ongoing existence. Surely you are not really taking the position that information and coding cannot be placed into biochemical strings because we are dealing with “chemistry”?

After a day passed, I wondered if Evolve would recognize he was going down a bad path and quietly back down.

Unfortunately, unwilling to follow the time-honored advice — “If you find you’ve dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.” — Evolve stepped up with another shovel full this afternoon:

If there’s information in life, then there’s information in dissolving salt in a glass of water! It’s all chemistry, Eric. And chemical reactions happen spontaneously on their own as you witness every second.

One molecule reacts with another molecule under certain conditions to make a product. Done. That’s it.

So there you have it.  It’s all just chemistry.  One molecule reacts with another and, ta-da!, life as we know it.  Nothing to explain here.  No information to see.  Move along folks.

A live example of utter failure to appreciate what is going on in living systems.  A refusal to acknowledge the gaping information chasm that separates any old “collection of molecules” from something like DNA.  A claim that if there is information in DNA, then there is also information in “dissolving salt in a glass of water,” because, hey, “it’s all chemistry.”

Mung, you can add this to your reference list.

Evolve, I apologize if this is coming across too harshly.  If you are genuinely interested in this issue, please read the prior thread in detail and think through the question of why researchers across the spectrum acknowledge that information is one of the keys to life — something that makes a fundamental difference between a living cell and salt dissolving in water.

Comments
Well, after four days of blessed silence…Mung
May 12, 2014
May
05
May
12
12
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Well, after four days of silence...Upright BiPed
May 12, 2014
May
05
May
12
12
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
AVS:
Early organisms evolved this translating system to carry out more diverse functions with better efficiency.
LOL! Really? Evolution now has foresight? What a tool. Are you not at this same time arguing elsewhere on this blog for the utter inefficiency of the cell? https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/junk-dnas-defender-doesnt-do-politeness/ The cell is efficient, except when it isn't, and evolutionary theory explains both, along with chemistry, which explains everything, except when it doesn't. Tell us again how chemistry explains both the efficient energetic processes within the cell and the inefficient energetic processes within the cell.Mung
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
AVS:
Mung, when I say ALL processes, I mean exactly that. ALL processes. If you can name one, then go for it.
Since you insist. Why is Chemistry distinct from Physics? It's all just chemistry, right? Why is Chemistry distinct from Biology? It's all just chemistry, right?Mung
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
#153 "This entire arrangement is a necessary precondition of the genotype-phenotype distinction..."Upright BiPed
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
...one last thing: You owe several people on this forum an apology for your entirely unecessary bigotry. No one expects it. But it is true.Upright BiPed
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
...by the way. This entire arrangement of a necessary precondition of the genotype-phenotype distinction. It must be in place prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution. To say this system is the product of Darwinian avolution, is to say that a thing that does not yet exist on a pre-biotic earth can cause something to happen. Which is obviously false.Upright BiPed
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
AVS, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, hoping you could think for yourself. Why would a physical discontinuity be required in a chemo/mechanical system in order to get a particular amino acid presented at the peptide binding site? Why would such a system need to preserve that discontinuity in order to produce the effect? I already gave you the answers. But frankly, you are so steeped in pseudo-intellectual reductionism that it’s not entirely certain you could find the nose on your face. And even after I give you the answers, which are hiding in plain sight, you’ll still resist them in service to your ideological needs. This is all very well understood in dealing with people who behave like you. The physical effect of having a particular amino acid presented at a binding site at a particular point in time is not something that can be derived from physical law – it’s not some innate property to be drawn from, or activated in, the atomic composition of matter. So a discontinuity will naturally exist in any system that produces such an effect. That discontinuity is required in order to allow the input of formal constraint (information) into the system, where it can produce an effect that operates under physical law, but is not determined by it. In other words, it’s an operational necessity to achieve the result. And the system must preserve that discontinuity for much the same reason. From a purely mechanical standpoint, if the effect were derivable directly from the physical properties of the medium, then it would be so by the forces of inexorable law, and those inexorable forces would limit the system to what can be physically derived from that medium, thus making the input of form (not derived from that medium) impossible to achieve. However, incorporating the discontinuity by preserving it allows the effect to be determined by a second arrangement of matter operating in the system. This second arrangement establishes a local relationship between the medium and its effect (bridging the discontinuity while preserving it). This relationship then becomes an identifiable regularity of the system, allowing the system the capacity to produce lawful effects not determined by physical law. cheers …Upright BiPed
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
It's not merely "all chemistry." It is chemical interactions that are occurring in a particular sequence. It's the sequencing (due to particular order of DNA codons and nucleotides) that AVS seems to be completely oblivious to. AVS doesn't seem to understand the difference between hardware and software.CentralScrutinizer
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
AVS:
On the contrary, molecules are recognized by proteins other than the primary interacting proteins all the time.
They are not "recognized" in the same sense as in aaRS and tRNA. It's as if you are proud to be a deceptive loser. Proteins bind with other proteins just by coincidence due to their charges and shapes. That is why chaperones are used in critical processes- to avoid cross-reactions with arbitrary molecules. OTOH aaRS has to somehow know that the tRNA is the right one. Sort of how a blind person recognizes brail or someone's face by touching it- because he/ she has the knowledge.Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
And more evidence-free babble from AVS- yes AVS, you will sleep well because ignorant people usually do as they have nothing to think about. You still don’t have any evidence that translation is and eveloved by purely chemical processes. And if you were right then making a living organism should be easy. BTW your "ability" is just to reproduce the evo propaganda. You still haven't produced any evidence to support your claims. That is why unguided evolution isn't science as it relies on our ignorance.Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
"The only way one molecule can recognize another is if it was programmed to do so." On the contrary, molecules are recognized by proteins other than the primary interacting proteins all the time. This is why crosstalk exists within signal transduction pathways, why many drugs must be given in low doses, and why cell biology is incredibly difficult; we have to tease apart the biologically relevant and irrelevant interactions that occur. Joe, you simply have no idea what you are talking about, and like everyone else here, you play on the gaps in current scientific knowledge in an attempt to advance your argument. This is why ID is not science. You are the epitome of ID. I will sleep well tonight knowing that ID has people like you on their side. Have a nice day and don't forget to tell me how I have no idea what I am talking about, despite my ability to continually demonstrate that I do. <3AVS
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
And then how does the correct tRNA know to go to the ribosome? What chemical process governs that? YOU really have no idea what YOU are talking about. Now how about transcription, proof-reading, error-corrrection, processing, editing and splicing?Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
AVS:
This will be the third time I say this Joe, the aaRS recognizes the small differences in tRNA shape and sequence.
Again, that you can say it does NOT mean it is reducible to chemistry. The only way one molecule can recognize another is if it was programmed to do so. You still don't have any evidence that translation is and eveloved by purely chemical processes. And if you were right then making a living organism should be easy.Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
UB, there obviously needs to be a connection to nucleotide and amino acid that is conserved. The system we have been talking about does this and it does this based on chemical interactions. And the evolution of this system was based on chemical interactions. That's it. Make your point already.AVS
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
This will be the third time I say this Joe, the aaRS recognizes the small differences in tRNA shape and sequence. There is more to the tRNA than just the site of amino acid addition. Any tRNA can enter the riobosome, but only a tRNA with the complimentary or near complimentary anticodon will stay in the A-site to allow for peptide bond formation. It's all chemistry bud, I could go on for days.AVS
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
AVS,
It is evolution UB.
This is not an answer to the question. Do you know why it’s there, and why the system must preserve it during translation? There is an identifiable reason. What is it?Upright BiPed
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
AVS- we are also still waiting for you to explain the origin of DNA via purely chemical processes.Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
AVS:
Joe, the aaRS has a binding site that is specific for an amino acid based on shape and charge, and also has a binding site that is specific for a tRNA molecule, based on shape and base sequence.
And yet all tRNA tails are the same. How can the aaRS tell the tRNAs apart if the place where the amino acid goes is the same on all tRNAs? And then how does the correct tRNA know to go to the ribosome? What chemical process governs that? YOU really have no idea what YOU are talking about. Now how about transcription, proof-reading, error-corrrection, processing, editing and splicing?Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
AVS:
Early organisms evolved this translating system to carry out more diverse functions with better efficiency.
Evidence please- your bald assertion menas nothing.
The system we see today is the result of the chemical evolution that occurred in these early organisms and has been conserved to this day.
Good luck finding evidence for your trope.Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
It is evolution UB. Early organisms evolved this translating system to carry out more diverse functions with better efficiency. The system we see today is the result of the chemical evolution that occurred in these early organisms and has been conserved to this day.AVS
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
That chemical discontinuity between nucleotide and protein is bridged by more chemical interactions though
I'm glad you now recognize the discontinuity. My question is: Do you know why it's there, and why the system must preserve it during translation? (hint: it's not evolution)Upright BiPed
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Joe, the aaRS has a binding site that is specific for an amino acid based on shape and charge, and also has a binding site that is specific for a tRNA molecule, based on shape and base sequence. This tRNA molecule is specific for a certain codon in the mRNA due to its anticodon trinucleotide sequence that hydrogen bonds to the mRNA according to Watson-Crick base pairing. The tRNA molecules fit into the catalytic sites of the ribosome and a peptide bond is formed between amino acids while the cleavage of GTP translocates the mRNA through the ribosome. It is entirely dependent on chemical processes. You really have no idea what you are talking about.AVS
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Maybe you missed it EA, but I have briefly explained how a number of cell functions can be explained by chemistry, including a couple of the ones you mentioned.AVS
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
That chemical discontinuity between nucleotide and protein is bridged by more chemical interactions though, UB, which as I said are the product of evolution. Yes the cells “decided” for lack of a better word. This is one of the problems with you guys, scientists try to put things in the simplest terms an you completely blow these terms out of proportion.AVS
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
AVS @118:
Asking how these systems evolved is even more complex, but I assure you, they can all be explained entirely through chemistry.
I was going to say what a laugh this is, but in fact it is actually rather sad. Again, you are showing that you not only don't have answers, you don't even understand the question. Much of the problem appears to arise because you don't understand what the word "explain" means. You don't recognize that there is a difference between a system utilizing chemistry in its operation and a system being completely explained by chemistry. You haven't answered the simple questions I posed. You haven't offered a single example of a system in the human body that is completely explained by chemistry. You haven't adequately responded to the numerous examples we cited of systems that can't be fully explained by chemistry, other than to provide your personal "assurance" that they can be "explained entirely through chemistry."Eric Anderson
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
AVS:
Yeah, because you’re not throwing personal attacks around or anything.
My attacks come AFTER yours and mine are aimed at your obvious ignorance and total lack of supporting evidence, ie your continued bald assertions. OTOH all you have are personal attacks and the unsupported "explanations" of an anonymous arse.Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
AVS:
I explained how the process of translation is completely determined by chemistry, as is each and every other process.
Your "explanation" is NOT evidence. You have failed to demonstrate anything.
The expression of DNA is entirely dependent on chemistry, including the process of translation as I just mentioned.
Your evidence-free bald assertion is meaningless.
The amino acid is associated with the aaRS, which associates with tRNA, which associates with mRNA.
Please demonstrate that any of those assiciations are due to purely chemical processes.
The chemical evolution that occurred would explain the why these molecules associate in our cells now, an ultimately arbitrary decision, driven by chemical interactions that occurred in early cells.
More evidence-free spewage. Maybe, someday, AVS will grow up, understand how science works and realize that he is just a bluffing arse.Joe
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
UB: AVS says: "The chemical evolution that occurred would explain the why" Emphasis mine. That "would" is really a triumph for you, coming from none else than ASV!gpuccio
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
The cells decided huh? cool AVS, there is a chemical discontinuity between the nucleic medium and the amino acid effect, and that discontinuity must be preserved in order for translation to be obtained. Do you know why? (...think about it)Upright BiPed
May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply