Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   coded information in DNA
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 316 of 334 (512837)
06-21-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by WordBeLogos
06-21-2009 5:03 AM


Re: Equivocation: summary execution.
WordBeLogos,
The known fact that codes, information, instructions, and plans where here before biological mental processes where.
No. Clearly it shows us why natural intelligence can be excluded as a possibilty for creating the genetic code. They simply where not around to do it. So what does that leave us with??
No, they were here before earthly biological mental processes. Notice the conclusion was that natural alien mental processes must have created the genetic code?
(2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
So does...
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.
You can't have it both ways.
When choosing between 2 & 5 we can invoke the logic that all known codes have been created by natural intelligences, therefore DNA is the same & aliens must be involved. Obviously you think that these aliens must be the result of a code themselves? Well, so must god in that case. So, who created god? It just pushes the problem backwards.
As regards 4) "There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information", it isn't undiscovered, it's called chemistry & natural selection. Natural selection has been observed to have created new function & therefore new genetic information.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-21-2009 5:03 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 317 of 334 (512838)
06-21-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by WordBeLogos
06-20-2009 7:51 PM


Creationists FAIL at definitions
1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
Like soooo many other Creationists, you rely on words which have multiple, non-precise meanings.
Define "CODE".
Code - a secret hidden message?
Code - a series of instructions?
Code - a collection of rules?
Code - a system for communication?
Code - a hospital emergency?
Is DNA a series of instructions? Could be considered that. Does that mean that a magical invisible masturbation obsessed infanticidal Jewish wizard created them? No. That's SILLY.
The rocks on a cliff face are not an intentional "code". However, pebbles falling down that face tend to pile up in a predictable bell curve at the bottom. Therefore the rock on the cliff face are CODING for the bell curve at the bottom.
Did the crazy Jewish wizard SPECIFICALLY place each rock where it is with the "purpose" of controlling how the pebbles land? Does that help him kill children or monitor masturbation?
It's simply intellectually lazy to look at something complicated and declare - someone made that using magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-20-2009 7:51 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Blue Jay, posted 06-21-2009 3:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 318 of 334 (512848)
06-21-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Nuggin
06-21-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Creationists FAIL at definitions
Hi, Nuggin.
Nuggin writes:
Define "CODE".
Please don't ask him to do this: Word has done nothing but repeat his definition of "code" throughout this thread, and has used repetition of his definition as a surrogate for actual debate.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Nuggin, posted 06-21-2009 1:27 PM Nuggin has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 319 of 334 (512866)
06-21-2009 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by WordBeLogos
06-20-2009 6:53 PM


Hi, WordBeLogos.
WordBeLogos writes:
Premise 1: Honeybees can make codes.
Premise 2: HTML is a code.
Conclusion: Honeybees can write HTML and make web pages.
Again, because something makes code doesn't mean it can make *THE* genetic code.
It does if you don’t provide further qualifications.
All I have done is take two arguments that YOU made, and apply them to one another. If my conclusion is inaccurate, it’s not because my logic is bad, but because YOU gave me insufficient premises to conclude anything else.
Here are the premises, along with the posts where you made them:
Premise 1: DNA is a code (Message 8 and Message 18).
Premise 2: Honeybees can make codes (Message 279 and Message 290).
I gave you a code that fits the same definition of "code" as DNA, yet violates your conclusion. That was the agreed-upon intent of this thread. Now, you expect me to start differentiating codes that fit your definition based on parameters that you have not provided.
Did you expect me to just add a fudge-factor like levels of intelligence on my own?
Do you not agree that it’s your job to provide your own argument?
Vacuous comparisons to HTML and vague references to differing levels of intelligence required to make different codes are meaningless points designed to make me accept your argument on uncertainty alone. Such statements are useless and devoid of substance: uncertainty cannot support any argument, by definition.
Please tell me specifically what is different about the genetic code that makes it impossible for code-making honeybees to make it. If anything, my argument shows that the genetic code is not unique, and shouldn’t be treated differently from other codes.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-20-2009 6:53 PM WordBeLogos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-22-2009 6:24 AM Blue Jay has replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 320 of 334 (512894)
06-22-2009 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Blue Jay
06-21-2009 9:05 PM


Gmornin Bluejay,
Bluejay writes:
Please tell me specifically what is different about the genetic code that makes it impossible for code-making honeybees to make it.
Because they are the product of the genetic code.
-Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Blue Jay, posted 06-21-2009 9:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 06-22-2009 7:47 AM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 323 by Blue Jay, posted 06-22-2009 8:14 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 321 of 334 (512905)
06-22-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by WordBeLogos
06-22-2009 6:24 AM


WordBeLogos writes:
Because they are the product of the genetic code.
Obviously never one to try thinking things through before posting, once again you've posted a logical contradiction. Obviously human beings are capable of designing the genetic code, but they're a product of the genetic code and by your own statement therefore incapable of designing it. Since the conclusion contradicts the initial premise, you've made a logical contradiction and your statement is false.
The problem you've set yourself is how to win a debate on a topic that you don't understand. Making the challenge even greater, the position you're trying to defend is wrong.
Science endeavors to follow the evidence wherever it leads without concern for whether we like the answers. You're doing things backward by first choosing the answer and only later looking for evidence. I again suggest that you gather evidence first and draw conclusions later based upon that evidence. Naturally I'd prefer that you begin by gaining a proper understanding of Shannon information, but you have many other misunderstandings you can choose from. Understanding that Shannon information does not include semantic meaning would be a good start.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar and add more clear phrasing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-22-2009 6:24 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 322 of 334 (512907)
06-22-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by WordBeLogos
06-20-2009 7:51 PM


3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.
The objection to this statement has been that the conclusion is reached inductively. Complaints have been made that inductive reasoning is inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are determined inductively and not deductively. If you wish to throw out inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make fire.
Thus we have, right here on EvC discussion forum, after more than 300 posts, robust evidence that life was intelligently designed.
You have no evidence atall that life was intelligently designed. That would require you to have some ACTUAL EVIDENCE about how life was designed or originated. Which you don't.
I'm one of the folks who criticised your inductive reasoning, and I stick by this for two reasons :-
- inductive reasoning is generally dangerous. Scientific theories are justified by their explanatory power, not by induction.
- you are extending the induction a long way: from situations in which it has been observed (generation of codes by humans) to a very different situation (generation of genetic code in the absence of humans).
I also agree with those who submitted the honeybee dance code as a counterexample. The code is 'written in the language' of DNA, but so what? PGP encryption is a code that's written in (say) C++.
It's clear that you feel yourself vindicated - but you are ignoring all the well-known pitfalls in inductive reasoning. Plus valid counterexamples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-20-2009 7:51 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 06-22-2009 8:16 AM Peepul has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 323 of 334 (512908)
06-22-2009 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by WordBeLogos
06-22-2009 6:24 AM


Hi, Word.
WordBeLogos writes:
Because they are the product of the genetic code.
Make up your damn mind. You, in Message 290:
WordBeLogos writes:
So for the discussion lets say [the honeybees] did create the dance themselves.
You can't have it both ways.
-----
I already addressed this "product of the genetic code" crap in Message 285, so please read it before commenting again.
You, in Message 218:
WordBeLogos writes:
*Operating* through, and *originating* from, are two different things.
Right. Johnny can make a snowman without making the snow from which he makes the snowman.
Mutations can make a new code without making the code they used to make the new code.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-22-2009 6:24 AM WordBeLogos has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 324 of 334 (512909)
06-22-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Peepul
06-22-2009 7:52 AM


I'm not so sure that WordBeLogos's problem is his use of inductive reasoning, and I don't share the dim view of it that some seem to have. Inductive reasoning plays a key role in formulating scientific theories, it's how we generalize from the specific. It's also why science is tentative, and why we require validation of theory in the form of successful predictions.
I think WordBeLogos has a few significant problems, and one of them isn't with reasoning but with just making things up, throwing out assertions that have no basis in evidence then attempting to use inductive reasoning to support them.
He also mistakenly believes that the conclusions of inductive reasoning are as strong as those from deductive reasoning. This is, of course, clearly false. The conclusions of inductive reasoning may be true, but we require validation through successful predictions, and even then any inductive conclusion still remains forever tentative.
As I said, I don't think WordBeLogos problems with reasoning have much to do the fact that it is primarily inductive. It's more that he doesn't understand enough about the issues to judge which inferences are valid and which are not. This wouldn't be so bad if he would respond to the criticisms, but he instead just repeats the invalid inferences over and over again.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Peepul, posted 06-22-2009 7:52 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Peepul, posted 06-22-2009 8:20 AM Percy has replied

Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 325 of 334 (512911)
06-22-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Percy
06-22-2009 8:16 AM


I think we'll have to disagree on that!
Have you read David Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality? I used to believe in induction till I read that.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 06-22-2009 8:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Percy, posted 06-22-2009 9:23 AM Peepul has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 326 of 334 (512915)
06-22-2009 9:15 AM


DNA as Information
In what way is DNA information and part of a communications system? What is it that is actually being communicated, and how is this communication taking place? The answers to these questions should define the framework for discussion in this thread.
Shannon defines the communications problem like this:
Shannon writes:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point.
Let's say our messages are binary digits and that we want to send the message "10101011". In Shannon terms, then, the problem of communication is that of reproducing "10101011" at some chosen destination point. This is usually done today by transmitting the bits down a wire or by radio waves, but it can be accomplished by any number of means, like drums or smoke signals.
We don't want to get too deep into the details because it would make discussion difficult, but I think we can generally agree that DNA is involved in communicating two different types of information:
  1. Communicating itself to the next generation.
  2. Communicating instructions to the rest of the organism.
About #1, communicating itself to the next genertion, this means that offspring receive a copy of their parent's DNA, or of a mixture of both their parent's DNA in the case of sexual reproduction. If we have a very simple organism whose complete DNA is "GCTAACTCG" then the communications problem is how to communicate, to transmit, "GCTAACTCG" to the next generation, to the offspring.
About #2, communicating instructions to the rest of the organism, we can use the example of E. coli, whose DNA needs to communicate to the flagellum when to spin and which way to spin. Note that at least on the surface this is not the same problem of communication as Shannon described it. Shannon talked about causing a message from point A to be reproduced at point B. But the DNA nucleotide sequence "GCTAACTCG" is not a message that the flagellum would find useful. The flagellum is expecting a protein, and it is the protein that communicates the message from the DNA. But what is that message if it isn't "GCTAACTCG"?
This is where meaning enters the discussion. As Shannon said, "Frequently the messages have meaning," but that "These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem." What the DNA sequence "GCTAACTCG" means to the flagellum when communicated to it via a protein is irrelevant to the problem of how the protein was constructed and transported to the flagellum. In terms of Shannon information we have a message set of size three:
  • Do not spin.
  • Spin clockwise.
  • Spin counterclockwise
How this information is represented by a DNA sequence is irrelevant to the amount of information being communicated, which is:
log23 = 1.59 bits
But the specific DNA sequence is not irrelevant to the E. coli. The E. coli is dependent upon very specific DNA sequences producing very specific proteins because nothing else will work, and without a functioning flagellum it will die. It is important to understand that this requirement for very specific DNA sequences by the organism is not part of the communications problem, which is simply how to reproduce a message at point B that comes from point A.
So let's say the three different messages were encoded with these DNA sequences:
  • TAACTCGGC: Do not spin.
  • GCTAACTCG: Spin clockwise.
  • ACTCGGCTA: Spin counterclockwise
Change any one of these sequences and the E. coli dies, but information theory doesn't care whether the E. coli lives or dies. From an information theoretic perspective, this encoding would work just as well to communicate the three messages:
  • A: Do not spin.
  • C: Spin clockwise.
  • T: Spin counterclockwise
Of course, not only are these not encodings for any proteins, they aren't even complete codons. This encoding set would undoubtedly kill the E. coli, but from an information theoretic perspective they are completely satisfactory, and that's what Shannon means when he says meaning is irrelevant to the communication problem.
--Percy

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 327 of 334 (512916)
06-22-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Peepul
06-22-2009 8:20 AM


Peepul writes:
Have you read David Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality? I used to believe in induction till I read that.
I haven't read the book, but Wikipedia has an article on it that makes it seem like he uses inductive arguments to make a case against the use of inductive arguments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Peepul, posted 06-22-2009 8:20 AM Peepul has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 328 of 334 (512963)
06-22-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by RAZD
06-21-2009 8:38 AM


Re: Simple code, simple answer.
RAZD,
RAZD writes:
As we have seen above, self-replicating organic molecules arise naturally out of the interactions of atoms and molecules in accordance with the basic laws of chemistry and physics. These self-replicating organic molecules contain the same kind of code used to replicate molecules as is used in DNA, and thus fit the minimum definition required by Premise #1. Thus the natural formation of self-replicating organic molecules amply demonstrates "how you get from the laws of nature to the genetic code" and Premise #2 is invalidated.
RAZD, you are making a huge error here. There are no self-replicating molecules of any kind, outside of the realm of life.
I challenge you to show us one that does not already come from a living thing.
Before you provide a link of something you claim does, please read it carefully and see if it actually replicates at all.
-Word

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2009 8:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2009 10:58 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

WordBeLogos
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 103
From: Ohio
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 329 of 334 (512965)
06-22-2009 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by bluegenes
06-21-2009 9:10 AM


bluegenes,
bluegenes writes:
Wrong.
1) Some codes are known to come from designers.
2) All known designers come from code.
1) *ALL* codes we know the origin of come from minds, (or are the direct result of DNA itself.) So, besides originating from DNA, *ALL* codes we know the origin of *ALWAYS* come from a mind.
So, all codes we observe come from DNA or a mind. Besides comming directly from DNA, we only observe them comming from minds.
Since the code in DNA is what is in question, minds are the only known origin for *ALL* other codes.
So DNA is excluded, being that which is in question. Therefore, codes we know the origin of *ONLY* come from minds.
bluegenes writes:
So, what do you do? Resort to medieval sophistry about "uncaused causes" of the universe, which, if they exist, certainly do not have to be gods, or other sentient beings, let alone your particular god.
Everything we currently know about nature rules out an infinite regress of causes. Which is why a human designer, is not a plausible explanation. In absence of a material explanation, the only alternative for the origin of code is an uncaused coder.
Thus the only available explanation that remains is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer. This argument simply indicates a Designer, an intelligence outside of space and time. It does not rule out Zeus. Or Superman. Or Deism for that matter. It just indicates 100% inference to design.
This argument cannot define the personal characteristics God. However it does leave God as the only logical possibility - simply because no empirical naturalistic causes are known, and an infinite regress of intelligent causes is not rational.
Those who dislike this option always do, of course, have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered. But one cannot say one has empirical evidence until such evidence is produced.
bluegenes writes:
Word writes:
Perry Marshall writes:
We have an INESCAPABLE question of: "How did the information get in living things in the first place?" The naturalist worldview has NO explanation for this.
Wrong. Observation tells as that chemical reactions produce novel chemical phenomena. Life is a chemical phenomenon, therefore the evidence points to chemical evolution as being responsible for it, and very strongly so, because chemical evolution can be directly observed.
There is no new information(no evolution), without code to begin with. No one is arguing code can't evolve to increase information. I believe in engineered evolution. Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong
bluegenes writes:
No-one, Word, has ever observed elves, fairies or gods doing anything, and the observational evidence for them is absolute zero.
You will have to speak for yourself on this one. You first need to show me that a God *cannot* be known through other means besides physical observation.
-Peace, Word
Edited by WordBeLogos, : No reason given.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by bluegenes, posted 06-21-2009 9:10 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Admin, posted 06-22-2009 9:30 PM WordBeLogos has not replied
 Message 332 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2009 10:30 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 330 of 334 (512966)
06-22-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by WordBeLogos
06-22-2009 8:52 PM


WordBeLogos Suspended One Week
The following material from your post was cut-n-pasted verbatim from Skeptic's Objection to Information Theory #6: It's not possible to draw conclusions about the Nature of the Designer at the Cosmicfingerprint website:
WordBeLogos plagiarizing writes:
Everything we currently know about nature rules out an infinite regress of causes...In absence of a material explanation, the only alternative for the origin of code is an uncaused coder.
Thus the only available explanation that remains is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer.
...
However it does leave God as the only logical possibility - simply because no empirical naturalistic causes are known, and an infinite regress of intelligent causes is not rational.
Those who dislike this option always do, of course, have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered. But one cannot say one has empirical evidence until such evidence is produced.
This is what I said in Message 179 the last time you were caught posting other people's words as if they were your own:
Admin in Message 179 writes:
I am suspending you for one day. Please remember that the next violation will bring a one week suspension, and the next will bring a permanent suspension. No one has ever been reinstated after a permanent suspension.
I'm suspending you now for one week.
Also, since this thread is now over 300 messages (300 messages is where threads are usually closed) I'm going to request summations and then close this thread.
Because of your suspension you won't have an opportunity to post a summation, but upon your return next week you can post a request that the thread be temporarily reopened for you, and you can have the last word.
Let me warn you though that if your post contains any plagiarized materials whatsoever that I will immediately delete the post (something that is almost never done here but which I'm threatening to do in your case because of your persistent and blatant history of plagiarism) and suspend you permanently.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by WordBeLogos, posted 06-22-2009 8:52 PM WordBeLogos has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024