Syndicate
User login
Navigation
The Information Age
With all of the talk of information in the genomes, the natural question arises:
If DNA is a storage medium for information, doesn't that indicate a designer? DNA encodes and decodes information based on an alphabet. It even contains error-checking.
DNA as a natural process is like accepting the natural formation of the TCP/IP protocol.
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags: apologia – Sat, 08/18/2007 – 21:34
links inline
links inline
Um, no. I guess I should say
Um, no.
I guess I should say more. Hmm. That's actually quite tricky, because any example I could give is either a) based on the work of humans, which clearly implies a designer, or b) based on nature, which you already believe implies a designer. So I'm going to have to stretch a little, and hope that it still works.
Imagine a depression in a rock. The depression catches water. It never catches so much that it overflows because it is sheltered in the lee of a rock wall, so the sides never erode from the overflow or from weathering. The surface of the rock is smooth, so freeze/thaw cycles cannot gain sufficient purchase to break up the rock. The rock is marble, essentially inert, so chemical reactions do not weather it. The rock is above the tree line, clear of any vegetation, so there is little around to contaminate the water. If I walk past it is perfect for me to take a drink from.
Clearly the rock was put there, right? it's just too well designed to be anything else. Unless maybe it's just a rock.
Hi Paul. Welcome. There is
Hi Paul. Welcome.
There is quite a difference between a rock bowl hollowed out by erosion and a code/decode alphabet with error correction, etc...
Differences
Of course there are differences, but not so great as you might think. If the rock were not made of what it is, it might have dissolved. If it wasn't in the lee of a cliff it might have weathered away. If it were not so smooth ice might have broken it up. If there were more vegetation (and hence more animals) around it might have become contaminated. If any of these things had happened it wouldn't have survived long enough to appear so ideally suited to my use.
The same is true of DNA. It is, I imagine, possible to have a DNA-like structure that doesn't have error correction, but its ability to perpetuate itself would be severely limited by that lack of robustness - some errors are good, but too many are not. That the system that survived long enough for us to admire it is the one that is complex enough to survive should not be a surprise to us.
As to the comparison between DNA and TCP/IP, well that's related to the next post on your blog. If you were to set the entire universe going again from scratch I'd be as amazed if DNA developed again as I would if TCP/IP developed again. Evolution wasn't trying to create DNA. It wasn't (and isn't) trying to do anything.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, and that explains how mindless, unguided, chance-driven processes created a data storage network, information processing, transmission, coding, decoding, error control, etc-- the information protocol of life-- from base chemicals.
"It might not be able to do it again, but it did this time..."
Thanks
Abstract
Your TCP/IP-like description of DNA fails on at least one point: DNA is NOT an abstract code that just correlates to reality. DNA has a physical presence and its physical structure affects the reality of heredity. TCP/IP uses abstract numbers to reference concepts. We aren't required to use arabic numerals, Roman would do fine (provided they had a zero). If you change the "code" of DNA, the results change simply because of physical laws. DNA is not an abstraction.
Almost
Actually my point wasn't that DNA was a huge fluke. It's entirely possible that it was - I don't know and I don't think anyone else does - but that's irrelevant. The point is that if we ran the universe again we might find DNA exactly the same, but structured as a quadruple helix, or 'spelled' with alternatives to AGCT (and perhaps 3, or 8 of them), or so totally different that it wouldn't really count as DNA except perhaps for the role it performed. And of course, we might not find it at all.
Now there are good models to show why a double helix is a good shape to do what DNA does, and why AGCT are well suited to making it up, so it's quite possible that if we get DNA at all it will look much like it does now. But just because it's complicated doesn't mean by definition that it is created.
Let me offer a counter-example. I assume that you believe the universe was created by God. That would include, I further assume, everything, from a grain of sand to an elephant. Hence, for you, the fact that something appears complex is no more an indicator that it was designed than the fact that something appears simple.
Hence, for you, the fact
Hence, for you, the fact that something appears complex is no more an indicator that it was designed than the fact that something appears simple.
Well, first, the complex would define the simple as also created, no?
And I think that you've oversimplified a bit by calling salt "simple". Salt may be simpler than DNA, but it is also a part of a variety of incredibly complex systems, such as the PH of the human body, etc...
DNA was the example used because of its similarity to information-processing systems we see produced today. But the complex is everywhere.
dogg, such difference causes my comparison to "fail"? I don't think so. Your own arguments have defined DNA as an information-centric system. You seemed to understand the implications of this when I asked for the explanation of no information to the incredible amount we see now. You offered no more than a deflection that abiogenesis isn't part of the Darwinian explanation. (which is untrue, by the way. I mean, gosh... the book was called Origin of Species!)
Complex Simplified Information
Well, first, the complex would define the simple as also created, no?
I don't follow. You say a complex 747 must be deisgned, so a hunk of iron you find in the ground must also be? You're expanding your argument to include religious implications again. The creator you envision for DNA is so powerful that it MUST have created everything.
And I think that you've oversimplified a bit by calling salt "simple". Salt may be simpler than DNA, but it is also a part of a variety of incredibly complex systems, such as the PH of the human body, etc...
Being a part of a complex system doesn't make something complex. See the chunk of iron above.
Your own arguments have defined DNA as an information-centric system.
How so?
You seemed to understand the implications of this when I asked for the explanation of no information to the incredible amount we see now. You offered no more than a deflection that abiogenesis isn't part of the Darwinian explanation.
I beg to differ. I offered a bit more on the subject of information. I pointed out that you'll have to define "information" rigorously before we can begin to quantify it. There's no point in talking about an "amount" of something before we even know what it is.
(which is untrue, by the way. I mean, gosh... the book was called Origin of Species!)
You're misreading the title. What Darwin was explaining is the origin of EACH species (from a pre-existing one). See these quotes from the conclusion in the first edition:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
"The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of a length quite incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created."
Doesn't sound like abiogenesis to me.
Salt?
I don't remember dismissing, or indeed mentioning, salt, but as the other commenter mentions, complex systems don't make their components complex.
Complexity isn't a defining characteristic of being designed, according to you, because things that don't have that characteristic are designed too (apparently). In fact it would seem that the only defining characteristic of a designed thing is that it exist, which is hardly a great test!
Salt is simple? Iron is?
In fact it would seem that the only defining characteristic of a designed thing is that it exist, which is hardly a great test!
Well, since salt is so simple... Create some. From nothing. Go ahead. It's simple.
Until you can ex-pl;ain their existence and organization from nothing, I figure it's a great test.
My point is, in the light of an explanation to all we see around us, there is no "simple". There is an incredibly high amount of organization in everything-- including salt, iron, even just plain old water. To define anything as simple is missing the entire point.
Now, my question isn't about iron, or salt... It is about DNA.
Dogg, define information any way you like. How did it get from none to what we now see?
Take care.