|
Author
|
Topic: Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
Message 14 of 220 (322165)
06-16-2006 9:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 9:01 AM
|
|
bogus
tdcanam writes: The main point of this thread is that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. To this date. Then the main point of this thread is bogus. It is simply not true that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. For instance, we can analyse the light from a distant star and find out about the chemistry of that star because that information is coded in the light. The idea that all known information to date has come from a concious mind is obviously simply utterly untrue. Sorry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:01 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:21 AM | | fallacycop has replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 20 of 220 (322175)
06-16-2006 10:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 9:53 AM
|
|
bogus
tdcanam writes: This is a cut and dry case of deductive resoning. If so far it appears that all codes come from a concious mind, than DNA, being a code, possibly came from a concious mind, until proven otherwise. The problem with that reasoning is that it starts from a bogus premis (read post 14). To reitarate it here, there is many, many instances in nature of coding that does not involve a concious mind in any way. A important part of a scientist job is to decode that kind of information. I'll give you another instance: The average world temperature of the last hundred thousand years is coded in the antartic ice through purely physical processes (no concious mind was needed for that)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:53 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 26 of 220 (322196)
06-16-2006 10:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:12 AM
|
|
bogus again
tdcanam writes: Rocks, light from distant stars and weather overhead are in no way codes. "Coded information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium. There are plenty of things in nature that meet that criteria. Lets take the light from distant stars as an example. it contains information about the chemistry of the star. this is information (a message if you will)
Snowflakes, tornados, sand dunes, water molecules do not contain coded information because there is no system of symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanism, no transmission of a message (plan, idea or instructions) that is independent of the communication medium. In other words, these things represent nothing other than themselves. This is simply not true. For instance, there is plenty of information encoded in the icecore removed from antarctic ice that represent other things than the antarctic icecore themselves. information about the average world temperature over the last hundred thousand years is just one of them.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:12 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 29 of 220 (322201)
06-16-2006 10:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:21 AM
|
|
bogus
quote:
Then the main point of this thread is bogus. It is simply not true that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. For instance, we can analyse the light from a distant star and find out about the chemistry of that star because that information is coded in the light. The idea that all known information to date has come from a concious mind is obviously simply utterly untrue. Sorry.
These examples are not codes. I just explained this a few minutes ago, read some of the previous posts. They do meet the definition of codes. The only reason you declare them as not being codes is because they open a hole below the waterline in your initial assertions in this thread
The theory holds no water 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:21 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 30 of 220 (322204)
06-16-2006 10:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:29 AM
|
|
bogus
I have already refuted star light and tree rings, look back about 4 or 5 posts and read through to this one, it's there. Those examples, with the exeption of tree ring which I explain, are not examples of codes. Your refutation is bogus. starlight and tree rings do meet the definition of a code
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:29 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:08 AM | | fallacycop has replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 32 of 220 (322214)
06-16-2006 11:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:47 AM
|
|
Re: Wounded King
tdcanam writes: If I put a steak on the bbq and burn it to a crisp, it is quite obvious to anyone that it was burnt after it came into contact with heat. But does the meat represent? Nothing but burnt meat. it contains no instructions, no intent. It is just a burnt steak. Now it becomes clear how circular your reasoning actually is. You declare here that for something to be considered a code there must be intent (shouldn't information content be enough?). But then you are already including your conclusion (that DNA is created by a concious mind) in your premise (that DNA is a code). If you decide to include intent as part of the requirement for something to be considered a code, then assuming that DNA is a code is assuming to much. That would be a case of begging the question.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:47 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:14 AM | | fallacycop has replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 37 of 220 (322224)
06-16-2006 11:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 11:08 AM
|
|
define your terms
I think you have to define your terms here. Either you decide to define a code as something that contains information (in that case all our examples are instances of codes) Or you decide to define a code as something that contains information and intent (in that case you're not justified in your assertion that DNA is a code since DNA's intent is what is in dispute here. That would be a case of beging the question) It seems to me that you've been going back and forth between those two different definitions. That would be a case of equivocation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:08 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 38 of 220 (322229)
06-16-2006 11:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 11:14 AM
|
|
unsupported assertion
tdcanam writes: Yes, a code is an agreed upon system of symbols, sounds, gestures, etc. that express intent. So be it then. With that definition, your statement that DNA is a code is an unsupported assertion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:14 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 46 of 220 (322248)
06-16-2006 11:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 11:35 AM
|
|
No Conciouss Mind!!
quote:
Quite right. And therefore the DNA, as it acts in nature, is part of a causal mechanism, and not a code. If it were a code, then it would require an interpretation of that code in order for anything to work.
It does have an inturpretation, and that interpretation was not ment for us. DNA's code is not ment to be decoded by us, it had a reciever/decoder. Ribosomes. The decoding of the genetic message from the DNA alphabet to the mRNA alphabet is called transcription in molecular biology. mRNA plays the role of the channel, which communicates the genetic message to the ribosomes, which serve as the decoder. The genetic message is decoded by the ribosomes from the 64 letter mRNA alphabet to the 20 letter alphabet of the proteome. This decoding process is called translation in molecular biology.
True. But the ribossome do not have a conciouss mind. since the decoder doesn't have a mind, I take it's also possible that the coder doesn't have a mind. (That's why assuming intent is not warranted here). In evolution theory this coding is created by a natural process called natural selection. this is a testable idea that has been confirmed by observations acumulated over many, many years. That's what makes it a good theory. what observations do you have confirming your theory that DNA was encoded by a conciouss mind?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:35 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:55 AM | | fallacycop has replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 50 of 220 (322258)
06-16-2006 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 11:55 AM
|
|
Re: fallacycop
Ribosomes don't need one. Recievers don't need to be concious. Even senders don't need to be concious. Only the designer of the code need be consious. A antivirus program does all it needs to after we design it without our help. If there is a designer. And if there is no designer, then there is no intent. And acording to your own definition, there would be no code. I think this circular line of reasoning you've been using has already been shown insufficient. Do you have anything better?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:55 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 68 of 220 (323259)
06-19-2006 12:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by tdcanam
06-19-2006 7:36 AM
|
|
tdcanam writes: DNA expresses intent. You can map it, one day we will able to read the outcome of DNA. DNA is filled with info on color, hight, arm/leg length, etc. You are trying to make a case that all known codes (to date) were produced by some concious mind (An therefore are instances of intent). But you also assume here that DNA expresses intent in one of your premisses. That is a fallacy called begging the question.
Star light does not transmit coded info. It has patterns. Patterns are not codes. They contain no info. I'll take it that you are just ignorant of the fact that star light does indeed contain coded information about the chemistry of stars. (unless you define a code to be something that shows intent in which case to lable DNA a code would not be warranted by the evidence)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by tdcanam, posted 06-19-2006 7:36 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 69 of 220 (323263)
06-19-2006 12:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by tdcanam
06-19-2006 8:07 AM
|
|
tdcanam writes: The point is, DNA IS a code. Codes are arrangments of symbols with agreed upon meanings intentionally transmitted from a sender/encoder to a reciever/decoder that express' specific instructions/intent. Again: If you define code the way you do here, it is not warranted to call DNA a code (You would have to show meaning and intent to begin with). You cannot declare it a code just because someone called it a code in a book you read, and then have your own definition of code apply. If you do that you are commiting the fallacy of equivocation (wheather you intended to or not, wheather you are aware of it or not).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by tdcanam, posted 06-19-2006 8:07 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 70 of 220 (323264)
06-19-2006 12:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by tdcanam
06-19-2006 8:07 AM
|
|
what then?
tdcanam writes: First off, I am not arguing for a God
what other options are there? (Please don't give me the silly ETdidit. it's even sillier then the godidit answer)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by tdcanam, posted 06-19-2006 8:07 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: Stale messages
Parasomnium writes: Actually, "ETdidit" is LESS silly than "Goddidit". The idea of "beings from another planet" is not only rather likely; from the viewpoint of another planet, say Mars, it is a certainty, even. After all, aren't we "extramartials"? Since Mars and Earth are not particularly special in the grand scheme of things, it is highly likely that there must be life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, I think the universe must be teeming with life. It may not all be intelligent life, and perhaps intelligence is rather sparse in the universe (as it is on Earth and, dare I say, among humanity), but given the immensity of the universe I'll wager a case of Mouton Rothchild that they're out there, those little green men. All that is true, but I still think it is too silly to state that an ET might have designed human DNA. A god would at least have some supernatural powers to do it with. Edited by fallacycop, : fixing quote box
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 102 of 220 (324650)
06-21-2006 11:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by tdcanam
06-21-2006 7:40 AM
|
|
A weak case
tdcanam writes: What is wrong with that? Codes don't spring up from rocks and water. How can you be so sure? may be they do through a process of abiogenesis followed by evolution.
I don't mean to say that all by itself it proves ID. It is just a case for the possibility. Sure. And I will go ahead and put your case in the mental shelf of very weak cases, which is where it belongs. Specially in view of the fact that there is a much better alternate explanation called evolution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by tdcanam, posted 06-21-2006 7:40 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2