Talk:DNA/Archive 3

message: [Peak:] Whether the DNA article uses the word "information" or "instructions" is of little consequence as far as I'm concerned, but since it was I who first proposed using the word "information" in the preamble, I would like to point out that the idea that DNA is the "substance carrying organism’s genetic information" is hardly new or uncontroversial.  In fact, I now see that that's how the Encarta entry for DNA begins.
Perhaps to stir up some controversy, Lir claims that:
* "information is technically something created by intelligent thought"
As P0M has already pointed out, this is manifestly untrue - in fact, the most "technical" meanings of the word (in physics and communications engineering) are distinctive precisely because there is no presumption of "meaning", let alone "intelligent thought".
Of course if Lir simply meant that some would define information as requiring intelligence, then there would be no cause for disagreement.
The real reason for this tangent, however, is that I came across
a 2003 revision of the April 1997 Scientific American article 
"BLACK HOLES and the INFORMATION PARADOX". For your reading please, therefore,
I offer you 
Peak 08:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tangent on "Information"

message: *Sentence 1A was, "*A: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries the genetic "instructions" for the biological development of all known organisms."  
**Although the indicator "instructions" may be debatable, it appears that Adcock, Peak, and Pynnor have no real issue with the above. 
*Sentence 2A could be: This nucleic acid is sometimes referred to as the "molecule of heredity" and the "genetic code of life". 
**A quick look on yahoo/google will find that both phrases are not uncommon. The latter phrase is used both to refer to the human genome and DNA. This sentence gives a link to nucleic acid, it links to important concepts such as heredity and genetics, and it gives the reader two generally accepted nicknames. In case the reader is truly ignorant of the subject, it also informs the reader that DNA is a molecule and that it is associated with the life processes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
:: I don't think this sentence adds anything useful, whatsoever, to the introduction.  The reader has already been informed that DNA is involved in genetics.  By virtue of the mention of nucleic acid in sentence 1, we have already indicated to the reader that it is a molecule.  As Lir suggests, the reader may indeed be completely ignorant, but that doesn't mean that we need to insult their intelligence in the introduction.  By avoiding this sentence entirely, we don't need to discuss the, controversial, merits of using those two phrases.  (I think they do deserve a mention in the article, however) Stewart Adcock 21:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "molecule of heredity" phrase is already in the main body of the article. The "genetic code of life" phrase could, perhaps, be mentioned along with the history of DNA research near the end of the article. Stewart Adcock 22:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Peak:] The genetic code link is already mentioned in the DNA article; the phrase is actually already used twice. Would Lir be content if we said something like "DNA uses the genetic code of life"? (I've already tried to explain to Lir that there's a difference between a "code" and an "encoded message." Would someone else perhaps like to explain why the phrase "DNA is the genetic code of life" is simply wrong?) Peak 07:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence 2A