Does DNA contain digital information?

[CoxRox]

Thanks for the replies so far guys. As I consider your explanations regarding DNA being likened to 'digital code' and the problems associated with using 'analogies', I have a few more questions:

Is the 'template' that DNA creates, 'information'?
Does Dna operate a real language?

(I'm assuming that 'code' and 'information' are the same thing ie a set of deliberately arranged data conveying a message e.g 'language')??

I understand that 'analogies' can only work so far, so is it possible to define the 'workings' of Dna in a way that is 'true' (for want of a better word)?

[Kayenneh]

Concider DNA a vast archive of all the blueprints of the body. RNA is the copy of the original schematic and proteins are made from this copy. Proteins are made from three bases at the time. Three bases equals one amino acid, and many amino acids in one chain equals a protein. The protein might be a hormone, which relays a message, but not all proteins are ment for messaging. Some are e.g. building blocks or enzymes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Calling it a language is also an analogy. Nothing is speaking, or communicating in the strictest sense. All functions are automatic, all interaction reduced to the most likely outcome. Attempting anything more complicated at such a base level would be more likely to fail than succeed. With DNA we're talking time and death.

[downbeatplumb]

DNA isnt quite the total guide people picture it to be, genetically identical cats can look completely different. other forces come into play in the development. Prions, RNA and environmental factors all play their part.

[Anomalocaris]

You are on a slipery slope where you apply rough, colloquial meanings of the words "information", "real", "delibrate", and "language" to insinuate something when evaluating what you are insinuation requires carful, considered, and applicable meanings of the word.

Is the 'template' that DNA creates, 'information'?

Yes, DNA as a template is information. But that's true of any non-random arrangement of atoms susceptable to increases in entropy. A mold used to make plastic bottles is a template and container of information how the bottle will be shaped. A pebble embeded in beach sand is information on the shape of the hollow in sand in which it rests.

So the fact that DNA is information in itself does not distinguish it from literally any and everything in the universe. Literally everything in the universe from just above Plank scale to 14 billion light years is information.

Does Dna operate a real language?

(I'm assuming that 'code' and 'information' are the same thing ie a set of deliberately arranged data conveying a message e.g 'language')??

Yes, the components of DNA is arranged in a particular way that transmits certain pieces of information. But how two rocks are piled on top of each other is also an arrangement that transmits information. Just as the rocks could be put there as a thoughfully arranged cairn to say something about a the boundaries of hiking path, it could also get there by falling at the distal end of a land slide and say something about the force and composition of the slide.

So any arrangement that transmit information could result from delibration, or it could result from no delibration. And vitally let's not confuse "no delibration" with "random". The two rocks that fell one on top of another at the end of the slide may have done so without any delibration. But that they ended up in this arrangement may be far from random. For example, the big rock on the bottom may have a deeply concave shape to its top, so any smaller rock hitting its top is likely to be trapped there.

So there is no compelling evidence to say DNA's arrangement was the result of any delibration, even if natural selection ensured that those arrangement which survive in nature is far from random.

So is DNA a "real language"? If by "real language" you mean transmission of information that comes after delibration, then no, it is not a real language. There is no delibration. But there is information.

I understand that 'analogies' can only work so far, so is it possible to define the 'workings' of Dna in a way that is 'true' (for want of a better word)?

Yes. a precise description of just how the molecule DNA works in a cell would get you a far better start than any inexact and inappropriately evocative analogies like "language":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_biosynthesis

If you must have an analogy, I might offer what I consider to be a slightly better analogy of a master mold or template that undergoes two important processes. One, the master mold is used to make working molds called RNA which are in turn used to make the end products called Proteins in a process called RNA proteain synethesis. Two, by a different process, a sand cast is made from the master mold, and the sad cast is then used to produce an exact duplicate of the master mold in a process called DNA synthesis.

If the master mold is shaped in such a way that the protein its working mold produces is incondusive to the survival of the organism, then the master mold gets greatly diminished chances of being successfully replicated into further copy of itself theoguh DNA synthesis, and eventually all copies of master mold will be destroyed as destruction overtakes the pace of success DNA synthesis.

Sometimes the master mold is changed by gliches in the sand casting process, and a slightly different new master mold is produced. If this new master mold produces working molds that in turn produce superior proteins, then the master mold gets enhanced chances of being successfully replicated into further copy of itself theoguh DNA synthesis, and the numbers of different copies of this master mold will increase in the world.

This is how this master mold natural selection process ensures only very
few of all possible mold configuration survive, and the surviving master mold shapes would seem at a later date to superficial evaluation to be non-random and delibrately configured.

[CoxRox]

I'll need to give some thought and study to what you're saying guys. Thanks again for the help so far.

Chuck- how you are explaining things is very interesting. I'll check out the links. Thank you. (Rayaan- your post looked a bit daunting and out of my league?? but thank you for the link).

[Rayaan]

(Rayaan- your post looked a bit daunting and out of my league?? but thank you for the link).

You're welcome, and yeah, sometimes my posts are a little daunting and weird like that. But, even many of the ideas in modern theoretical physics are strange and amazing such as concepts like black holes, extra dimensions, colliding branes, holographic universe, simulated universe, multiverses, quantum entanglement, delayed choice experiments, etc. So, don't think that reality is so simple and comprehensible.

[theVOID]

Afterall, the universe itself might be a giant quantum computer: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Black...puters.pdf

Awesome article, cheers for the link.

If you're into this train of thought you should look into the 'holographic principle'.

[Anomalocaris]

Afterall, the universe itself might be a giant quantum computer: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Black...puters.pdf

Awesome article, cheers for the link.

If you're into this train of thought you should look into the 'holographic principle'.

If, in principle, a sufficiently powerful digital computer running sufficiently sophisticated software can simulate physical processes to arbitrary accuracy and precision over an arbitrarily large slice of the universe, then we can say to the scope and precision desired, the digital process of computer is an analogue to the physical universe close enough to be indistinguishable to the real thing to the end user.

Then the reverse would also be true - that to such degree of precision and scope, the physical universe is also an adequate analogue to this digital computer close enough to be indistinguishable from the real thing.

[CoxRox]

Yes, DNA as a template is information. But that's true of any non-random arrangement of atoms susceptable to increases in entropy. A mold used to make plastic bottles is a template and container of information how the bottle will be shaped. A pebble embeded in beach sand is information on the shape of the hollow in sand in which it rests.

So the fact that DNA is information in itself does not distinguish it from literally any and everything in the universe. Literally everything in the universe from just above Plank scale to 14 billion light years is information.

I understand how 'everything' is information. Is it the case there are types of information that can only be a by-product of intelligence ie a mind? If we take the plastic mold- it needed a designer to develop it's specifications, then its production etc. It was developed deliberately with a purpose in mind, and so it existed as an idea in the mind of the developer first, before it was made. Going from that fairly simple 'design' , if we leap to a computer, then of course we know that it needs intelligent minds to build it.

I'd like to 'cite' this short computer animation of the inside of a cell as possible evidence for design. The animation starts at 1.18 and lasts a few minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_...52&index=1

(I think someone posted this up on another thread. I couldn't get the link up so not sure).

Does this animation truely reflect the parts and activities in the cell ie does it really 'look' like this in the cell? The first time I watched this, all the hairs stood up and I had goose bumps all over. I was blown away by how 'created' the 'machines' look that do all the activities with the dna and rna etc.

If this animation is a 'true' reflection of the cell and it's 'parts', then I can't begin to understand how natural selection could work on so many levels of order and construction. 'Machines' are needed to make the other machines ie the dna and rna etc. How did all the 'virtual' blueprints all come about at the same time, to be able to produce a cell? Everything seems to be 'packed' with the kind of intelligence that comes from a designer.

If I may link to another short video - I came across this video (under five minutes), of Steven Myers talking about the 'information' in the cell and he goes into greater detail about how the 'information' is recognisably similar to computer programming. I'd like someone to critique his points please. I don't know anything about computers, code etc, and so I'm at a disadvantage in fully understanding if what he and others like him, are arguing is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzxWaDmg...52&index=4

Yes, the components of DNA is arranged in a particular way that transmits certain pieces of information. But how two rocks are piled on top of each other is also an arrangement that transmits information. Just as the rocks could be put there as a thoughfully arranged cairn to say something about a the boundaries of hiking path, it could also get there by falling at the distal end of a land slide and say something about the force and composition of the slide.


...........So there is no compelling evidence to say DNA's arrangement was the result of any delibration, even if natural selection ensured that those arrangement which survive in nature is far from random.

So is DNA a "real language"? If by "real language" you mean transmission of information that comes after delibration, then no, it is not a real language. There is no delibration. But there is information.

If the animation in that video is correct, then I am struggling to view dna etc as akin to rocks falling in a certain manner.

I look forward to your replies. Go easy on me, and try to word things as simply as possible.