|
Author
|
Topic: Terms You'd Like to See in the ISCID Encyclopedia...
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 23. February 2003 17:23
Hi Micah,
I'm doing a lot of echoing in this thread. In agreeing with what gedanken has mentioned about the entry for genetic information:
quote:
Genetic Information
The specific linear sequences of subunits in DNA and RNA molecules that are required to sustain the living state by specifying the sequences of amino acids in proteins. Genetic information is both complex and specified.
I'd say this is a tough one. First, strictly and formally speaking, the statement "Genetic information is both complex and specified" is not correct. "ID theorists hypothesize that genetic information is both complex and specified" is a better one, but that may ally the encyclopedia too closely with ID.
Secondly, genetic "information" (see the following for the reason I put the term in quotes) may be linear (but it may not - think about viroids and how they work; also, RNA editing comes into play in a multi-dimensional sort of way), but it most certainly is not colinear.
Thirdly, the term "information" is loaded. I can think of three rather different usages (and I am sure there are more) - a colloquial one (that is what most biologists use when they speak of information), a rigorous information theory usage, and a confusing (to me) philosophical or metaphysical usage. All three are unfortunately used with far more interchangeability than is proper in ID discussions. This really makes for confusing, inaccurate, and even misleading logic and discussion.
Given this last point, and that there are other terms that deal with genetics and molecular biology, maybe it would be best to delete the entry for "genetic information".
Just a thought.
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 23. February 2003 17:58
Art, Gedanken,
The entry has been deleted for two reasons: first, it was more like a glossary entry than an encyclopedia entry, and therefore would have been deleted upon eventual review. Second, I think your concerns are valid.
However, I do think that an in-depth description of the various understandings of genetic information (it is certainly a term that is used outside of the ID community), along with a description of the potential complications associated with describing genetic material as information, would be a welcomed entry.
In other words, the entry as it was previously entered perhaps did not suffice. However, I disagree with Art's assessment that the term is too ambiguous and vague to be of any worth to the encyclopedia. I think that a discussion of the various uses and misuses of the term would be very helpful.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 25. February 2003 08:03
Glad to see the work you're doing, don't have anything really unique, although I'd like to
offer
Integrative Complexity
and
Designsignature cf. Biosignature
for consideration.........................................................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 25. February 2003 15:16
“Specificity” has been a central principle in biology for more than a century. It is the basis of the “sequence hypothesis” (the observed colinearity: DNA<>RNA<>Protein) and supports the intuition (somewhat less reliable): sequence -> structure -> function.
It is also indispensably part of the definition of information. (Although it is referred to by other, synonymous terms, e.g., Shannon uses “instance,” “index,” “selection,” “choice,” etc.). I can’t imagine that “information” is (scientifically, meaningfully) anything other than “specified,” even when it is only specified as “unspecified.” LOL
The “complexity” of genetic strings is well-investigated in bioinformatics and computational biology, etc., where it takes the conventional definitions of “complexity” found in higher mathematics and computer science. (Although even here there is no one definition of “complexity,” but rather the delimiting of “complexity classes” based on the sometimes difficult characterization or generalization of problem instances wrt resource-bounded measures, such as “polynomial time.”)
There is nothing wrong with Shannon’s succinct and perfectly serviceable definition of information. That goes w/o saying. But, its extension and application to biology would alone fill the better half of an encyclopedia!
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 25. February 2003 16:08
Janitor wrote quote:
There is nothing wrong with Shannon's succinct and perfectly serviceable definition of information. That goes w/o saying. But, its extension and application to biology would alone fill the better half of an encyclopedia!
The first sentence is true (for me, anyway) in the context - communication (really, data transmission) theory - in which Shannon developed his information measure/definition. And if folks stuck religiously (!) to the operational definition, that'd be fine, again in that specific context. Where I get edgy is when "information" is measured as, say, Shannon entropy, but the measurements/numbers are then endowed with all kinds of properties (meaning) and features (conservation) that don't have a doggoned thing to do with Shannon entropy or with formal communication theory. It's kind of like using (dare I say it?) "complexity" when what one really means is "improbability." ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I read Gedanken in another thread as working toward remedying that, or at least clarifying it, and I applaud his efforts.
RBH
.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 25. February 2003 19:57
Hi Micah,
How about an entry on what is the monster as in the "Monster Group."
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 28. February 2003 08:15
The mod said we could suggest changes to definitions
already given, and while I won't spell out the change
I see that's needed explicitly, I'd like to point out
the need for a fuller definition of IC.
I haven't seen this issue discussed, perhaps I've missed it, in any case,
it appears to me that there are at least three different types of irreducible complexity
which relate to the topic gradualism vs IC . Two of which, the ISCID definiton could be applied, one to which, it cannot.
The first two are machines and cascades.
1. Machines: Usually this type consists of a single machine with several different parts, often working simultaneously to perform their intended function. (e.g., Mousetrap, flagellum etc..)
2. Cascades: Unlike the singular machines, this type consists of several different machines and/or parts, which operate in a line of succession(similar to dominoes), though the individual machines and/or parts are often quite different and perform different
functions(unlike dominoes).(e.g., Rube Goldberg machines, blood clot cascade etc..)
Either of these two, it seems to me, fit Behe's definition and therefore ISCID's definition of IC. However, there is a third type of IC, and it doesn't seem to fit in as well with Behe's definition:
3. Informational: The irreducible complexity in this sub-group has to do with Complex Specified Information {CSI}. (Web Addresses, Dna, protein etc..)
Take the example of
[discovery.org]. (The actual address (leaving aside the numerical conversion) is http://discovery.org.) If, on your first visit to the site, you try to visit by typing anything less, than discovery.org you'll arrive somewhere other than your intended destination. The address discovery.org appears to be irreducibly complex. Yet does it fit your definition? It doesn't seem to.
Yet, can it be arrived at by gradualistic (Darwinian) means? It seems that it is truly irreducibly complex and if so, informational irreducible complexity will ultimately need to become part of the definition of IC.
I think that part of the problem encountered in David Rice III's excellent thread on
IC and the Topoisomerase II
was due to an incomplete definition of IC. Nothing really wrong with his argument, in fact, it was superb. But isn't the enzyme itself, at some basic level, still IC? Or perhaps the code for the enzyme, or both?
Just some thoughts.........................................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 28. February 2003 12:56
Cre8 suggests something quite important.
I understand that Behe himself has changed the definition of "IC" several times. It would be useful to have the series of definitions so that discussions that relate to each version can be tracked to the definition version that is most relevant or applicable. This would be consistent with a change from an appearance of a glossary to a true "encyclopedia" reference.
In fact there are several terms that are defined in books and papers that relate to intelligent design, and the author's original definitions should be presented in the Encyclopedia -- noted by source.
For example if there are definitions given to "Genetic information" in ID books, those could be listed, by source. This would completely resolve my objection, because the listing by source is not a claim of validity, just an observation of what has been written. This is in fact exactly what is done in some situations in encyclopedias.
(My prior objections to certain definitions were in terms of the appearance that ISCID itself was putting weight behind a particular definition or claim made in presenting that definition. ID related terminology certainly is valid ground for an encyclopedia here, and I encourage the presentation of clear definitions from these texts. This can also highlight lack of clarity by giving a firm reference list for definitions that can be pointed to in discussions, and in that form is not a claim of support one way or another by ISCID itself.)
[ 28. February 2003, 14:04: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stuart Harris
Member
Member # 152
|
posted 28. February 2003 16:50
Micah,
The term "species" seems to have several definitions depending on context. To say that two organisms are of the same species, or that a speciation occurred, depends on either having a common genome, or being reproductively isolated, or both, or ...
It would be nice to see an assemblage of all the definitions of what is meant by "species".
IP: Logged
|
|
Danpech
Member
Member # 163
|
posted 29. March 2003 00:43
random.
simulation.
simulated intelligence (alternate term for 'artificial intelligence', and, I think, less misleading).
complex system.
programmatic constraint.
infinity.
axiom.
algorithm.
mathematics. (really)
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic