I was debating with a theist who asked a question that I could not answer. Basically it was to do with the information that is stored in dna. Who placed it there?

Any ideas?

Thanks

Everything in the universe can be seen as data. The atoms in a piece of rock is data. In fact, physics as we know it implies data.

However, the data in DNA has been generated over time through evolution. There's nothing weird about this: if we posit that chemistry is somewhat non-deterministic (or even if it's deterministic, that's no big problem), and a lot of random molecules are created every now and then everywhere, if some molecule happens to be so shaped as to be able to reproduce, this molecule will fill out the available niches relatively fast - it will be more common than non-reproducing molecules of the same elements in that environment, due to it more or less assimilating atoms into self-replicating structures. If some flawed copying produces a molecule capable of copying even more efficiently under the same circumstances, this will become even more common. A flawed copy that reproduces less efficiently will not dent the expansion much - and maybe if it's good at expanding under some other circumstances if it happens to get into such circumstances it will outcompete the previous variation quickly in that environment.

The information in DNA is analogous to this, although several steps down the line (e.g. cells, multicellular life, sexual reproduction, ...) - leaps that have made the results the mutations cause more abstract results in the competition for reproduction. Of course, being the biggest group isn't necessary either - being sufficiently efficient is.

So basically, the information there is information that has randomly appeared. Why the current information is there is because it has been sufficiently efficient (and had some luck - happening to appear under the right circumstances) to still be there.

Think I understand that

Thank you

Passer wrote:I was debating with a theist who asked a question that I could not answer. Basically it was to do with the information that is stored in dna. Who placed it there?

Information is stored in DNA in the exact same way that the information that 2 hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom makes water is stored in water.

MrFungus420 wrote:

Passer wrote:I was debating with a theist who asked a question that I could not answer. Basically it was to do with the information that is stored in dna. Who placed it there?

Information is stored in DNA in the exact same way that the information that 2 hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom makes water is stored in water.

Ah right

Thank you

MrFungus420 wrote:

Passer wrote:I was debating with a theist who asked a question that I could not answer. Basically it was to do with the information that is stored in dna. Who placed it there?

Information is stored in DNA in the exact same way that the information that 2 hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom makes water is stored in water.

With the difference that we know there's enzymes and things that do operations on DNA that look very much like simple models of computation (eerily like turing-machines in some respect!), whereas to what extent computations happen when hydrogen and oxygen combine it's not in a manner we can describe as observable automata working their way on them.

There's this guy who is arguing that DNA has information in it that's just like 'language'. For example

"I am pointing out the fact that the information on DNA is the same as information contained in a book written in Greek, or computer code. They are all the same"

And

"DNA is written in a language. It does represent something other than itself. It is, therefore, information. It performs the function that information performs. It's information"

His point, the information is separate from the DNA, like the words on a page in a book. So it must have been placed in the DNA by some intelligence.

I'm running out of examples in trying to explain he's wrong.

Passer wrote:There's this guy who is arguing that DNA has information in it that's just like 'language'. For example

"I am pointing out the fact that the information on DNA is the same as information contained in a book written in Greek, or computer code. They are all the same"

And

"DNA is written in a language. It does represent something other than itself. It is, therefore, information. It performs the function that information performs. It's information"

His point, the information is separate from the DNA, like the words on a page in a book. So it must have been placed in the DNA by some intelligence.

I'm running out of examples in trying to explain he's wrong.

But the information isn't different from the DNA. If the DNA doesn't exist, neither does the information.

Also, why MUST there be an intelligent designer for information to exist? There's information in a pile of rocks that fell from an avalanche, so would he claim that this was produced by some intelligence?

You know, there's nothing wrong with leaving an discussion if the person isn't willing to be open to logic.

Tbickle wrote:But the information isn't different from the DNA. If the DNA doesn't exist, neither does the information.

True, but he's still going to say it was put there.

Tbickle wrote:Also, why MUST there be an intelligent designer for information to exist?

Good point. This is my next angle of approach.

Tbickle wrote:There's information in a pile of rocks that fell from an avalanche, so would he claim that this was produced by some intelligence?

He insists the information in DNA is different. I'm sure he is saying it's almost like letters on a page type information. Like, the information for the colour of your hair is 'Your hair will be blonde'. It sounds like that.

Tbickle wrote:You know, there's nothing wrong with leaving an discussion if the person isn't willing to be open to logic.

Dead right.

Passer wrote:I was debating with a theist who asked a question that I could not answer. Basically it was to do with the information that is stored in dna. Who placed it there?

"In the precise sense in which one may speak of semantic information, genetic information can hardly count as an instance of it. It simply lacks all its typical features, including meaningfulness, intentionality, aboutness, and veridicality. DNA contains the genetic code, precisely in the sense that it physically contains the genes which code for the development of the phenotypes. So DNA does contain genetic information, like a CD may contain some software. But the genetic code or, better, the genes, are the information itself. Genes do not send information, in the sense in which a radio sends a signal. They work more or less successfully and, like a recipe for a cake, may only partly guarantee the end result, since the environment plays a crucial role. Genes do not contain information, like envelopes or emails do, nor do they describe it, like a blueprint; they are more like performatives: 'I promise to come at 8 pm' does not describe or contain a promise, it does something, namely it effects the promise itself through the uttered words. Genes do not carry information, as a pigeon may carry a message, no more than a key carries the information to open a door. They do not encode instructions, as a string of lines and dots may encode a message in Morse alphabet. True, genes are often said to be the bearers of information, or to carry instructions for the development and functioning organisms, and so forth, but this way of speaking says more about us than about genetics. We regularly talk about our current computers as if they were intelligent—when we know they are not—and we tend to attribute semantic features to genetic structures and processes, which of course are biochemical and not intentional at all. The 'code' vocabulary should not be taken too literally, as if genes were information in a semantic-descriptive sense, lest we run the risk of obfuscating our understanding of genetics. Rather, genes are instructions, and instructions are a type of predicative and effective/procedural information, like recipes, algorithms, and commands. So genes are dynamic procedural structures that, together with other indispensable environmental factors, contribute to control and guide the development of organisms. This is a perfectly respectable sense in which biological information is indeed a kind of information. Dynamic procedural structures are a special type of informational entities, those that are in themselves instructions, programs, or imperatives."

(Floridi, Luciano. Information: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. pp. 79-80)

Passer wrote:

Tbickle wrote:But the information isn't different from the DNA. If the DNA doesn't exist, neither does the information.

True, but he's still going to say it was put there.

Tbickle wrote:Also, why MUST there be an intelligent designer for information to exist?

Good point. This is my next angle of approach.

Tbickle wrote:There's information in a pile of rocks that fell from an avalanche, so would he claim that this was produced by some intelligence?

He insists the information in DNA is different. I'm sure he is saying it's almost like letters on a page type information. Like, the information for the colour of your hair is 'Your hair will be blonde'. It sounds like that.

Have you tried to elicit a definition or criteria from him of what is considered "information"? Chances are that his definition is either going to be too strict or be so ambiguous that almost anything could be information. Let him tie his own noose and hold him to HIS definition.

He said

"DNA contains a written language consisting of four characters that have to be read in order for the instructions they contain to be carried out. Where is the language of an atom? How many characters make up the photon language?"

Passer wrote:He said

"DNA contains a written language consisting of four characters that have to be read in order for the instructions they contain to be carried out. Where is the language of an atom? How many characters make up the photon language?"

He is right, there is a vast complexity to such a subject. That is why we have Science, we're trying to find answers. Complexity does not equal intelligent design, that is a bold and dishonest assertion. The real answer is that we don't know how these complex system came to be, but we have the right idea.

I would love to digress upon the subject of DNA as I do study the subject, but I feel that this is a job for those who are true educators. The right bookshop would have the information you hunger for in an easy to chew manner.

Does anyone have any books they would recommend?

We have a way to explain how the information got there, and nothing else to compare it to. You can't point to DNA and claim divine intervention simply because it's unique or looks/acts "just like language". Of course it's complicated. It's had four billion years.

Man I wish I was young again, I'd hammer those books like no tomorrow.

Passer wrote:He said

"DNA contains a written language consisting of four characters that have to be read in order for the instructions they contain to be carried out. Where is the language of an atom? How many characters make up the photon language?"

A language is an abstract set of symbols which represent objects, concepts and actions. Each symbol within language has no independent meaning save as a reference for an idea established by common consent.

By contrast, DNA acts as a template for physical enzymes and molecules according to a set of chemical principles which are not established by common consent but rather by the physical processes of reality. Each codon of a DNA sequence refers to a correspondong sequence of mRNA (and tRNA) and no other.

Your interlocuter is confused because we humans write DNA sequences down as if they are language; that is, they are an arbitrary set of symbols which are taken as referential for a particular concept. In actuality, DNA operates purely by the mechanics of chemistry and molecular conformation.

DNA is neither wholly code nor language. DNA is unique in our experience and attempts to generate a comparison to purely human constructs is an exercise in futility. The person you quote above is clearly attempting to construct a syllogism along the lines of:

A) DNA is a language
B) All languages are constructed by intelligence
C) DNA was constructed by intelligence (god)

This is incorrect because premise A) is wrong. B) is also generally incorrect, as shown by the ratio of accidental to constructed languages. Finally, even if both A) and B) were correct, C) does not follow because it assumes that god is present and intelligent in order to satisfy the conditions of the precedent statements.

Just A Theory wrote:

Passer wrote:He said

"DNA contains a written language consisting of four characters that have to be read in order for the instructions they contain to be carried out. Where is the language of an atom? How many characters make up the photon language?"

A language is an abstract set of symbols which represent objects, concepts and actions. Each symbol within language has no independent meaning save as a reference for an idea established by common consent.
By contrast, DNA acts as a template for physical enzymes and molecules according to a set of chemical principles which are not established by common consent but rather by the physical processes of reality. Each codon of a DNA sequence refers to a correspondong sequence of mRNA (and tRNA) and no other.

The argument from analogy fails simply because linguistic information is semantic information and genetic information is nonsemantic information. See the Floridi quote above!

Some excellent replies

I doubt very much he will accept this - but I'm convinced.

Thank you all for your time and effort, I appreciate it.

Biological Information: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infor ... iological/

Semantic Conceptions of Information: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/