Re: [asa] Re: information, complexity, environment -- was ]Biologic Institute

Hi David,

Nicely said. Thanks.

-Mike
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Randy Isaac
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: information, complexity, environment -- was ]Biologic Institute

  Randy said: To me, that means that actual organismal complexity is so much smaller than the potential, that the C-value paradox isn't puzzling but shows that the exhibited complexity depends to first order on factors other than the amount of genetic material.

  I respond: This is interesting. So what are the other factors? For one -- not the "amount" of genetic material, but the specific "instructions" in the portions of the genetic material that are actually coding for proteins?

  Here is a crack at a brief critical realist theology of biological information:

  I don't like the ID / Biologic Institute notion that "information" is a basic property like energy and matter. "Information," IMHO, is not ontologically at the same level as energy and matter because "information" emerges from other more fundamental layers that are material and/or relational.

  In cybernetic theory, Norbert Weiner suggested that "information" is like matter and energy, and Rolf Landauer famously said "information is physical." What is truly "physical" in Landauer's schema, however, is only matter and energy -- physical circuits and magnetic fields arranged in certain configurations in a computer's memory. The semantic content of those configurations only emerges out of the physical substrate within a socially constructed context -- the "decoder ring" of computer coding languages created by groups of human beings.

  In the context of the Divine Logos speaking creation into being, the "Word" is not a property created out of nothing like energy and matter. Rather, the "Word" is a person of the Triune God. The "informational content" of the created order is a social construction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who in self-communion willed and allowed space for the physical universe to exist.

  We appreciate the beauty and order of the CTAG "language" sequences that emerge from DNA molecules and this "language" is susceptible to information theoretic manipulation in computational biology. This is not, however, because God created "information" ex nihlo, but because His creation is relational and social, and "information" emerges from relational and social structures. Very basically, the relationship of organisms to environment causes the continual reconfiguration of the physical layer of DNA, from which "information" emerges. The presence of genetic "information" in living organisms, then, is not proof of a preexisting intelligence, but is consistent with the relational creative activity of the Triune God.

  On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:

    Rich wrote:

      There is also an implicit assumption that organismal complexity is the result of DNA complexity. That these didn't correlate caused the C- value and G-value paradoxes. In yesterday's PNAS Stumpf et al found something where the complexity actually does match organismal complexity, namely the so-called protein-protein interactome.

    So true, Rich. A physicist's tendency to oversimplify (the classic spherical cow) can miss an awful lot of good stuff. But sometimes it does help to oversimplify in order to put things into perspective. I would suggest that the complexity of an embryo is reflected by the amount of all biochemical material, not just DNA. That this does not correlate to organismal complexity is very interesting but not surprising. The full extent of potential organismal complexity is never expressed.

    Let's try that in a different language. Given a string of DNA, one could in theory calculate the number of possible proteins for which that string could code. That is the cellular complexity, or potential organismal complexity. The number of proteins actually formed by that string is vastly smaller and represents the actual organismal complexity.

    To me, that means that actual organismal complexity is so much smaller than the potential, that the C-value paradox isn't puzzling but shows that the exhibited complexity depends to first order on factors other than the amount of genetic material.

    Randy

    To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
    "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

  --
  David W. Opderbeck
  Associate Professor of Law
  Seton Hall University Law School
  Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1432 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 7:49 AM

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 14 22:35:26 2008