Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
Now we are on the threshold of seeing the question studied in the laboratory. See you in the future.
Can I say that the data on your hard drive is separate from the structure of the hard drive?
What separates the DNA of an amoeba from the DNA of a Man, then?
The answer, of course, is that there is different DATA stored in those two DNA samples.
And DATA isn't just stored in DNA. DATA is also stored in the chemicals (via magnetism usually) that comprise your hard drive.
You'll forgive the impertinance, but your post above appears to show an astonishing lack of understanding regarding the structure of DNA. DNA is not a blank sheet of paper waiting for someone to type on it. Data isn't just stored in DNA, data is stored AS DNA.
A strand of human DNA and a strand of amoeba DNA (to use your example) are superficially similar to the extent that they are both structured as a double helixes. It is the base pairs (AT and GC) that determine the difference. This link gives a brief explanation. There is a table at the bottom, and while I didn't see an amoeba listed, there are enough other critters to make the point.
It is data that distinguishes the DNA of the first cellular organism from that of Man's. Both Man and amoeba have DNA, after all, but what distinguishes the DNA from each other is the data.
Maybe you need to be more precise (this seems to be coming up fairly often). What is data? How are you distingusihing the letters in the sky from Shakespeare (beyond the quantity - the sky may not hold enough clouds). Hamlet says "To be". How much data is there - and how do you know? Is it as much as in "Estar", a Spanish infinitive of to be? What about "frewa"? I made that one up, but how could you describe how much data it contains? What if it is in fact Finnish for a very complex and abstract concept like "event horizon"?
My point is that you have not shown how to evaluate how much "data" is in a sentence, much less in a DNA strand or a non-DNA self-replicating peptide chain. For sentences, data is a cultural and linguistic construct. "To be" means nothing to a Nepalese youth who speaks no english - the sounds are empty and the symbols just a scrawl. If you cannot quantify the amount of "data" in your sentence, how can we apply your analogy to chemical compounds?
Likewise, until we have data stored in DNA, we don't have Life. Instead, we just have a chemical compound/structure.
Maybe you better define these too. What is life, here? Cells? Are viruses life? Is a single strand of DNA life? RNA? simple self-cloning peptides? If a cell has no DNA is it "life"?
How did the data get there? That's a very valid question, worthy of a mathematical probability exercise (as this and other related threads indicate).
It's also an interesting question because you can't tell us what data is. If a DNA strand goes ATC, is that data? What about CCG? What if the first is from a planaria and the second from a dog? GATTACA? (That's a lot of data, because it also refers to a mediocre movie.) Is there more data if the DNA is part of the "junk DNA" or less? How do you tell if you don't know what part of the gene it is from? Thus, it seems, just as linguisitic data is context-dependent, genetic "data" may also be context-dependent.
Moreover, you assert that the DNA strings are very data-complex. Why? The have fewer values (4), so each alpha-numeric value (36 possible, more with punctuation and cases) contains more information than 10 bases! Each codon is three bases - is each letter equal to 30 bases? If I were to explain what "to be" means, I might engage in a book-length discussion of the self, autonomy, and philosophy. Hamlet meant life and death. This meaning is all contained in the sentence - is it also data? If it isn't, is there any more data in "to be" than in "frewa"? We can calculate the precise probability / improbability of data forming randomly / naturally / without intelligent aid.
But can you validly apply it to chemistry, and demonstrate that it MEANS anything?
Yes, that's a far superior way of saying it. I stand corrected, thanks.
Yes, that's a far superior way of saying it. I stand corrected, thanks.
How much? How many bases per english letter?
You probably erred when you used the term "specious" above. As for DNA appearing digital, I'd agree somewhat.
However, DNA more closely resembles an analog computer (or control system) than a digital computer, to me.
And specific changes in an analog control system are not always 100% predictable due to environmental feedback. Hmmm...
Interesting that analog us reproduces with DNA, which is clearly digital in structure. Some mechanism must be required to prevent the iterative ADA conversion from drifting into nonviable jelly. Is it possible that the mechanism is selection?
What quantity of information is encoded in DNA? Unless you can explain it, then information theory would indeed seem a poor choice for chemistry.
No, we can't, because I reject his assertion about the minimum number of genes. If a cell can get along with no DNA or RNA in the right environment, it can get along a little bit better with a very few genes, and build from there.
I've seen no proof of that assertation. Can you offer any proof or is that merely your opinion of early life?
Oh, no, you don't. You're the one who posted the assertion of impossibility. I've put forth one possible plausible hypothesis (out of several I might have put forth, and an infinitude I haven't thought of). It's up to you to disprove that hypothesis; all I have to do to counter the author's assertion is make a plausible argument.
In many cases, the DNA (and thus the data) is identical -- the difference lies in how it is expressed. In other words, it ain't the storage format, it's the processor wot makes the difference, heh?
As an example, red blood cells have no nucleus, and, IIRC, no DNA. Are they alive?
"No, we can't, because I reject his assertion about the minimum number of genes. If a cell can get along with no DNA or RNA in the right environment, it can get along a little bit better with a very few genes, and build from there."
I was trying to build consensous based upon your statement that all known cellular life had DNA.
I've seen no proof of that assertation. Can you offer any proof or is that merely your opinion of early life?
"It took a lot of searching through that long-winded game of 3-card-Monty to find the slight-of-hand, but there it is. The minimum is zero."
42 posted on 3/6/02 7:36 AM Pacific by Physicist
There are organisms without DNA.
There are also cells without DNA.
There aren't currently any single-celled organisms without DNA, but based on the two previous points, it's easy to imagine that such a thing is possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.