View Single Post
Old 28th April 2008, 08:22 AM   #142
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
You cannot make disappear a logical problem by simply ignoring it. It is impossible to build a tool, a house, a car or something else without corresponding information. The advent of automated machines and computers has shown that even the construction of simple tools needs quite some information.
Clearly. It has also shown that by relying on construction time derivation of parameters, using the axioms of mathematics (hint: they apply to biology as well), the apparent complexity of the processes used in construction can be much lower than the construct. I can write a piece of code, compiling into only a few thousand bytes of data, that can construct a billion sided polygon.

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Compare the bone structure of a human with the bone structure of a chimpanzee. Every single bone has several degrees of freedom. And in order to determine a degree of freedom, information is needed. That is simple logic (see also). Or take the pseudo-thumb of the two panda species, which has emerged during phylogenetic evolution in addition to the five fingers. The information that such a pseudo-thumb appears during ontogenetic development must come from somewhere. Or do you suggest that a panda embryo can scan the body of its mother and use this as information?
Yes, it is simple logic, and everyone here agrees. But it doesn't advance your argument any. Your monumental failure in this thread has been to grossly overestimate the "degrees of freedom" that are actually needed for a biological structure to take on or change function. As Dr Adequate has been saying, find any example of function that is not entirely the result of the laws of chemistry, and you will be right.

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Where are the degrees of freedom in your examples? Do you suggest that the fact that a HIV protease cleaves viral polyproteins at twelve different sites is similar to the free fall of a stone or to the burning of wood?
Uh, yes, because both are entirely the result of the laws of chemistry and nothing more? Or are you suggesting that some unseen force is controlling the protease and telling it which sites to cleave at? You could test that hypothesis, you know -- remove any molecule from the protease and see if it behaves exactly the same. Do you think it will?


Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Think about the information needed for and by a robot capable of recognizing and cutting the twelve sites of macroscopic models of HIV polyproteins. And don't forget: the information content of the HIV protease is only in the order 75 byte.
Think about the information needed for and by a robot capable of reconstructing every snowflake shape found on Earth. And don't forget: the information content of the water molecule is in the order of 0 bytes.

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Maybe the following animations can help to recognize that enzymes are in fact animated beings with inborn instinctive behaviour (acquired during biological evolution and representing information): HIV Replication 3D Animation and HIV Lifecycle.
Maybe the following book can help you understand why you are completely wrong about what information actually is:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ima...5382082&sr=8-1

Last edited by rocketdodger; 28th April 2008 at 08:24 AM.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top