Saturday, July 16, 2011

DNA is NOT information.

A common theme in the childish arguments between theists and anti-theists is the question of DNA being information.  The theists claim that evolution can only remove information from the genome and the anti-theist evolution fans claim that mutation adds information to the genome.

The interesting thing is neither group seems to have much understanding of the term “information”.  It’s as if they agree we live in the information age and they can operate a computer so therefore they actually understand what the term means.

One of the earliest things I remember from my collage days was the computer science classes where the professor made a strong point about the difference between information and data.  His lecture started with a warning that the vast majority of people don’t really understand the difference.  And after getting out on the internet and seeing how people use the term, he was absolutely correct.

The standard definition of information is “a message received and understood”.  The place where the misunderstanding appears to come from is what happens after the message has been received and understood.

Most people seem to think that as you collect up information the result is a pile of information.  But to think of it this way is to fundamentally misunderstand the term.  The result of collecting information is a pile of data not a pile of information.

Information is data that is in transit from one location to another.  In the context of the internet, data starts out on some server.  It gets replicated into a set of messages and is transmitted to another location.  There it is received and if it is in an understandable format it is converted back into data.

Another example: As information is read into a computer, it is organized and most commonly stored on a hard disk.  However, there is no information on a hard disk.  There is only data.  It’s not until that data is taken off of the hard disk and sent somewhere else that it is considered information again.  And just as before, when it finally arrives at its destination the result is data at that location.

There is a very good reason we call large collections of data on a computer data bases and not information bases.  An information management system is used to control the dissemination of information to various locations.  While a database management system is used control data stored at one location.

Claiming DNA is information is a kin to claiming information is stored in a database.  It is an uneducated attempt to make that data seem more important than it really is.  While it might be a good marketing spin, the reality is that it actually shows the lack of understanding a person has about basic computer science concepts.

Another aspect of the misunderstanding is the fight that information is being lost or gained via the process of evolution.  Adding information would be adding elements to the data that where not expressible previously.  For example, adding a person’s address to an information stream that was not previously expressible would be adding information.  Removing that address and the ability to express it would be removing information.

Simply including more of the same information is not adding information it is simply expanding the size of the message.  In the case of DNA more or less base pairs is not adding or removing information.  To add information you would need to be able to add something that was not expressible in earlier versions of the data format.  To remove information you need to make it impossible to send what was being sent in the older versions.

With DNA this is NEVER the case.  The format of the data is always the same set of four nucleotides.  Sure the order and size changes from data set to data set but no additional information is included nor is any information removed.

Another key aspect of information is the need for transmission.  To address this issue one must first define the location where the information is transmitted from and where the information is being received.

Many times, the colloquial description is that DNA is passed from parent to offspring.  But that is wildly inaccurate.  For that to happen, the offspring would need to first exist for the DNA to be passed to them.  However this is not what happens in the real world.

A more accurate portrayal would be that the DNA is replicated and once it is separated from the parent cell, the offspring grows based on the copy of the DNA.  In other words until the separation of the offspring DNA from the parent cell, there is no destination for any information to be sent to.  So in reality, there is no transmission of information from parent to offspring.

Now of course, when you get up to the diploid life forms like most animals, there is an information transfer in the form of sperm to the egg.  But the egg is not the offspring.  Once the DNA from the male arrives and we can legitimately claim the offspring has been created, no additional DNA transfers happen.  So DNA is not being transferred from parent to offspring.

Another attempt to claim DNA is information is when talking about protein synthesis using RNA.  In this case the separate locations are the nucleolus and the site where the protein is actually synthesized.   DNA is used to form RNA that is transferred to the synthesis location and the RNA is information at that time.  However the DNA is not being used as information.  It is the data used to form the message that is represented by the RNA.

Once the RNA arrives, it no longer information.  It is simply a special kind of data most commonly known as code.  It is a set of instructions that guide the production of the protein.  Once again, the RNA is no longer functioning as information it is functioning as the program that guides the protein production.

At best, DNA and RNA only sometimes function as information.  However most of the time they are nothing more than simple data.  To claim that DNA and RNA are information to fundamentally misunderstand the term.

When looked at from this standpoint both the theist lost of information theory and the anti-theist gain of information theory are childishly naive views.  Whether this is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the term or an intentional attempt to make their theory sound more convincing, both are wrong at a fundamental level.

If you want to test to see if the theist or anti-theist is being dishonest or just dumb.  Restate their argument replacing the word information with the word data.  Chances are the argument will have the same or better level of validity however it won’t sound so sexy.

Also be aware that most of these arguments are coming from people that are not very skilled in computer science or computer technology.  They are normally biologists and theology majors without the necessary training to really understand the words they are using.

No comments:

Post a Comment