Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 220 (321802)
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


Hi, new guy to this forum. I am a creationist who opts for an old earth and is in no way threatened by evolution. If evolution is one day proven to be a fact, I will be a happy man. However, as it stands, I have a few issues with macro evolution.
Let me start this thread off with a few definitions.
1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. "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.
3. Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p(A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
4. Instructions, by definition, require a mapping from probability space A to probability space B. Therefore any set of specific instructions is necessarily a code.
5. To fit the formal definition of a code, DNA need only uniquely specify one or more characteristics (male/female, blood type, etc). It does, as well as sex, blood type, number of arms and legs, and a very very long list of other things. (This is just the short version.)
O.K., to the point.
DNA is a code, by all definitions of the word. Authorities agree. If you need quotes, let me know and I will be happy to post them, all of them. (There are many.)
The first part of my two fold problem with macro evolution is as follows, (note, this is not Paley's argument)
Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind. All of them. There is not one example of a naturally generated code.
If all codes come from a conscious mind, who encoded DNA?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "Intelligen" to "Intelligent" in topic title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2006 11:54 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-15-2006 2:00 PM tdcanam has replied
 Message 5 by happy_atheist, posted 06-15-2006 7:31 PM tdcanam has replied
 Message 6 by paisano, posted 06-16-2006 12:02 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 7 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 12:25 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 7:07 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2006 8:45 AM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 06-21-2006 1:59 AM tdcanam has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 220 (321827)
06-15-2006 11:16 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 220 (321845)
06-15-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


2. "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.
I'm not sure that I would agree with this statement with regard to DNA. It seems to require the assumption that the 'message' is independent, I think you would need to make a case for this.
4. Instructions, by definition, require a mapping from probability space A to probability space B. Therefore any set of specific instructions is necessarily a code.
This seems a lot of room for the defintion of instructions to the point that any particular state could be seen as encoding the instructions for the evolution of that state in line with normal physical and chemical interactions, indeed this is the basis of chemically based quantum computing, that the quantum evolution of the molecules involved will produce an answer to the question encoded in their initial state. While a specific state may be imposed on the molecules to allow us to pose a question they are always in the position of encoding the question relevant to their own quantum evolution. Similarly the chemical constituents of DNA are always interacting chemically with their environment in such a way as for the state of the DNA and its environment to encode the evolution of that state including the production of mRNA's etc...
Again you seem to be front loading with the assumption that there was an 'experimenter' as it were who specified information for the initial state of the DNA, but this doesn't need to be the case any more than someone needs to specify any state for it to subsequently evolve in line with physical laws.
Would you not consider the rings in a tree to be encoded with data relating to the seasons during which those rings developed?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 8:55 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 220 (321916)
06-15-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


How is this substantively different from the ID claim that because DNA is information, and because all information has an intelligent source, therefore DNA must have had an intelligent source?
Unless there is some substantive way in which this is different, the same answers apply. The most significant issue is the one Wounded King already touched on, that all information garnered from nature is encoded.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:01 AM Percy has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 5 of 220 (322031)
06-15-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


2. "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.
That definition implies abstraction. Now I'll admit my knowledge of DNA is limited, but from what little I know I certainly don't get the impression that there is anything abstract about DNA. It acts as a template for creating proteins, and there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between a particular DNA sequence and the protein that will be produced.
As an example of a code that I think fits the definition you posted above take language. The word 'apple' will probably make you picture a vaguely spherical green object that you might want to eat. But the word itself is in no way related to the object. Without being told to relate the two, someone who hadn't heard the word apple wouldn't end up picturing what I described. That doesn't seem to be the case with DNA. There is no scope for defining relationships between DNA sequences and proteins.
If DNA really were a code that fit the definition above then it would be possible to take exactly the same DNA sequence and get completely different results, but (unless there is a lot that I'm unaware of) that is never going to happen.
If all codes come from a conscious mind, who encoded DNA?
This (in my opinion) epitomises the failing of ID. I haven't followed the debate much so this has probably been said over and over, but I'll say it anyway.
The reason I think this is a failing is because it shows that ID actually makes no predictions. Your sole way of identifying something as ID seems to be "I can't explain it any other way, so it must be ID". This logic just doesn't cut it in science.
It isn't good enough to say "I don't know of any code that doesn't originate from a conscious mind, therefore all codes must come from a conscious mind". The reason for this is because you don't know where DNA comes from! If indeed it is a code under the definitions you posted how do you know that it isn't the "code that doesn't come from a conscious mind" that would prove that not all codes come from a conscious mind?
This circular logic can be summed up as follows...
1. All codes I know of come from a conscious mind
2. From 1, all codes must come from a conscious mind
3. DNA is a code, so from 1 and 2 it must be from a conscious mind
4. 3 feeds back into 1, reaffirming my assumption that all codes come from a conscious mind
As you can see, it's impossible to EVER end up with a code that doesn't come from a conscious mind using this logic.
The only way that ID is every going to be meaningful in any sense at all is for it to supply an accurate method for determining something intelligently designed from something not intelligently designed. Personally I don't think that distinction can ever be detected objectively without seeing the "creation" process.
Not knowing of a naturalistic mechanism can never be evidence for any conclusion because there is always the possibility that a naturalistic mechanism can be found tomorrow. The only valid conclusion is "I don't yet know".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:53 AM happy_atheist has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 6 of 220 (322079)
06-16-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


The first part of my two fold problem with macro evolution is as follows, (note, this is not Paley's argument)
Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind. All of them. There is not one example of a naturally generated code.
If all codes come from a conscious mind, who encoded DNA?
Let's rephrase your argument a bit:
All known codes are of human origin.
DNA is a code.
Therefore DNA is of human origin.
Hopefully it can be seen that this conclusion is a non sequitur.
The fact that all known codes are of human origin, even if correct (and I think that point is disputable), does not rule out the possibility of one of natural origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:56 AM paisano has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 7 of 220 (322083)
06-16-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


DNA isn't really a code though, it is just convenient to speak of it as one for preliminary study.
From the proper orbital distance, the earth looks just like a big contoured map. If you were teaching people who were already familiar with maps about stuff on the earth as seen through a telescope, it would be very convenient to speak of it as if it were a map, and talk about the equator and latititude and longitude and the poles and so on as if they were really there.
You can land on the earth though, it's not a map at all, it's a real thing. DNA is the same way, it isn't really a message that has to be decoded by someone with a codebook, it is real chemicals that cause real changes in real proteins whether anyone is looking or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 8:40 AM Iblis has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 8 of 220 (322132)
06-16-2006 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


dna contain readable infomation in the form of a code , so do rocks , so does light from a distant star , so does the weather over head ,
but none of it is infomation requiring a conscious mind to "create" the infomation .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:12 AM ikabod has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 220 (322151)
06-16-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Iblis
06-16-2006 12:25 AM


quote:
DNA isn't really a code though, it is just convenient to speak of it as one for preliminary study.
Take a look at a these.
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
The encoding / decoding process in DNA happens without the intervention of intelligence, just like your computer getting automatic virus updates. Water flows and hailstones and sand dunes do not encode and decode information in this way. Only intelligently designed systems map 1:1 to Shannon's model. (From The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, 1998).
Yockey describes the encoding, transmission and decoding within the cell and its analogue to a recording tape. (Quoting Yockey): “Figure 5.2 describes the DNA-mRNA-proteome communication system to show its isomorphism with the standard communication system of the communication engineer. The genome, or the ensemble of genetic messages, is generated by a stationary Markov process and recorded in the DNA sequence, which is isomorphic with the tape in a tape-recording machine (Turing, 1936).
“The idea of encoding, of the accurate representation of one thing by another, occurs in other contexts as well. Geneticists believe that the whole plan for a human body is written out in the chromosomes of the germ cell. Some assert that the ”text' consists of an orderly linear arrangement of four different units, or ”bases' in the DNA forming the chromosome. This text in turn produces an equivalent text in RNA, and by means of this RNA text proteins made up of sequences of 20 amino acids are synthesized. Some cryptanalytic effort has been spent in an effort to determine how the 4 character message of RNA is re-encoded into the 20 character code of the protein. Actually, geneticists have been led to such considerations by the existence of information theory. The study of the transmission of information has brought about a new general understanding of the problems of encoding, an understanding which is important to any sort of encoding, whether it be the encoding of cryptography or the encoding of genetic information.”
(John R. Pierce, An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise, 2nd edition, 1980)
(Hubert Yockey): “The genetic code has many of the properties of codes in general, specifically the Morse Code, the Universal Product Bar Code, ASCII, and the US Postal Code. I shall explain the relation of these codes to the genetic code in the following discussion. Every code, as the term is used in this book, can be regarded as a channel with an input alphabet A and an output alphabet B.”
Here is the formal definition of a code: Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p(A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
Here p(A) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet A and p (B) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet B. (Perlwitz, Burks and Waterman, 1988)
Nature has extended the primary four-letter alphabet to the six-bit, 64 member alphabet of the genetic code. Each amino acid except Trytophan and Methionine has more than one codon. Thus, the genetic code is redundant (not degenerate). The sloppy terminology designating the genetic code as degenerate is responsible for most of the misunderstanding of the genetic information processing system.
“The genetic code is distinct and uniquely decodable, because the single Methionine codon AUG, and sometimes the Leucine codons UUG and CUG, serve as a starting signal for the protein sequence and performs the same function as the long frame bars at the beginning of the postal message in the ZIP+4 code and the Universal Product Code. The codons UGA, UAA and UAG function usually as non-sense and stop the translation of the protein from the mRNA and initiate the release of the protein sequence from the mRNA (Maeshiro and Kimura, 1998). They perform the same function as the long frame bar at the end of the postal bar code message (Bertram, 2001). Remember that non-sense does not mean nonsense or foolishness. Code letters are called non-sense because they have been given no sense or meaning assignment in the receiving alphabet.”(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
“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 . (Ribosomes) act like the reading head on a tape machine (Turing, 1936). The protein molecule, which is the destination, is also a tape. Thus, the one-dimensional genetic message is recorded in a sequence of amino acids, which folds up to become a 3-dimensional active protein molecule. One is reminded of the linear signals that fold up to show a 2-dimensional picture on the television screen.”
(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
“The problem of how a sequence of four things (nucleotides) can determine a sequence of twenty things (amino acids) is known as the ”coding' problem.” (Francis Crick)
Genetic Code: The sequence of nucleotides, coded in triplets (codons) along the messenger RNA, that determines the sequence of amino acids in protein synthesis. The DNA sequence of a gene can be used to predict the mRNA sequence, and the genetic code can in turn be used to predict the amino acid sequence.
(50 years of DNA, Clayton and Dennis, Nature Publishing, 2003)
“The most compelling instance of biochemical unity is, of course, the genetic code. Not only is DNA the all but universal carrier of genetic information (with RNA viruses the sole exception), the table of correspondences that relates a particular triplet of nucleotides to a particular amino acid is universal. There are exceptions, but they are rare and do not challenge the rule.”
(The Way of the Cell, Franklin M. Harold, Oxford University Press, 2001)
“A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.
“In intercellular communication the domains and counterdomains are the signal molecules and their receptors, and the code is like the base-pair rules of the first-tier code of the DNA, a simple rule between pairs of molecules of matching surfaces.
Why There are no Double-Entendres in Biological Communication: The basic information for the encoding in intercellular communication (a high-class encoding complying with Shannon's Second Theorem) is all concentrated in the interacting molecular surfaces. And this information is what makes the communications unambiguous. We can now define an unambiguous communication: a communication in which each incoming message or signal at a receiver (or retransmitter) stage is encoded in only one way; or, stated in terms of mapping, a communication in which there is a strict one to one mapping of domains, so that for every element in the signal domain there is only one element in the counterdomain.
“The table in Figure 7.9 tells us at a glance that a given amino acid may have more than one coding triplet: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, for instance, are all synonyms for leucine. A code of this sort is said to be “degenerate.” That is OK despite the epithet, so long as the information flow goes in the convergent direction, as it normally does. The counterdomain here consists of only one element, and so a given triplet codes for no more than one amino acid. Thus, there is synonymity, but no ambiguity in the communications ruled by the genetic code.”
(The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999)
“(George) Gamow devised a scheme, illustrated by means of playing cards, that involved sets of three adjacent nucleotides per amino acide unit (“triplet” code) in a sequence of overlapping triplets. That proposal spurred Francis Crick and his colleagues to examine the coding problem more critically and to use knowledge gained from genetic experiments to test the possible validity of Gamow's scheme and its variants. By 1961 they had concluded that the nucleotides of each triplet did not belong to any other triplet (“nonoverlapping” code); that sets of triplets are arranged in continuous linear sequence starting at a fixed point on a polynucleotide chain, without breaks (“commaless” code), thus determining how a long sequence is to be read off as triplets; and that more than one triplet can code for a particular amino acid (“degenerate” code).
(Proteins, Enzymes, Genes: The Interplay of Chemistry and Biology, Joseph S. Fruton, Yale University Press 1999)
“The genome of any organism could from then on be understood in a detailed way undreamt of 20 years earlier. It had been revealed as the full complement of instructions embodied in a series of sets of three DNA nitrogenous bases. The totality of these long sequences were the instructions for the construction, maintenance, and functioning of every living cell. The genome was a dictionary of code words, now translated, that determined what the organism could do. It was the control center of the cell. Differences among organisms were the result of differences among parts of these genome sequences.”
(The Human Genome Project: Cracking the Genetic Code of Life, by Thomas F. Lee, Plenum Press, 1991)
“The three-nucleotide, or triplet code, was widely adopted as a working hypothesis. Its existence, however, was not actually demonstrated until the code was finally broken .
“With a knowledge of the genetic code, we can turn our attention to the question of how the information encoded in the DNA and transcribed into mRNA is subsequently translated into a specific sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain. The answer to this question is now understood in great detail . instructions for protein synthesis are encoded in sequences of nucleotides in the DNA molecule.”
(Biology, 5th Edition, by Curtis & Barnes, Worth Publishers, 1989)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 12:25 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 8:59 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 9:43 AM tdcanam has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 220 (322153)
06-16-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


There is not one example of a naturally generated code.
There is, actually - it's called "DNA."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 220 (322155)
06-16-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
06-15-2006 11:54 AM


Wounded King
quote:
I'm not sure that I would agree with this statement with regard to DNA. It seems to require the assumption that the 'message' is independent, I think you would need to make a case for this.
The information within the DNA describes more than just a helix. For example, say I wrote a message on a piece of paper. The paper is just paper, it describes nothing but itself. The ink I wrote the message in is just ink, it describes nothing but itself. Both of these things contain zero intent, plans, or messages. The symbols on the paper in ink however, have an agreed upon meaning between myself and the reader. They express my intent.
I have a full comprehension of the intent I wish to convey to you on paper, so I break it down, highest to lowest, pragmatics/intent, semantics/meaning, syntax/grammar, statistics/alphabet, and encode my message. You then recieve my message and work from the bottom up to decode it. Statistics/alphabet, syntax/grammar, semantics/meaning, pragmatics/intent.
The message is on paper, but the message has nothing to do with the paper. The message is written in ink, but is has nothing to do with ink. The message is seperate from it's medium(s).
quote:
Would you not consider the rings in a tree to be encoded with data relating to the seasons during which those rings developed?
Yes, I would. But look at where the rings come from. A tree. Does a tree contain DNA? Are tree rings not a product of the design of a tree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2006 11:54 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 9:55 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2006 12:25 PM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2006 7:50 AM tdcanam has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 12 of 220 (322156)
06-16-2006 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 8:40 AM


Thanks, I hope you will forgive me for not bothering to go around quote-mining all the characteristics of a self-updating hemispherical contour map just to prove the earth definitely qualifies.
Yes, DNA is a code, it has all the characteristics of one. But it is not MERELY a code, anymore than the earth is MERELY a map. It has all the key advantages of a code, in that information is transmitted for example. In the same way the actual earth has all the key advantages of a map, in that it is a remarkably good representation of, itself.
But the earth does NOT have the disadvantages of a map, its not out of scale, it doesn't have distortion at the edges, it doesn't require someone to cut pieces of paper in curves and paste them together flat and so on. Most importantly, you can live on the earth, and not in a map.
Your assertion is that because DNA has the advantages of a code it must have the disadvantages as well. This is categorically untrue. The message involved in mere coding must come from someone, it must be intended for someone. DNA encodes and decodes itself without any assistance from hypothetical entities at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 8:40 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:19 AM Iblis has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 220 (322157)
06-16-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
06-15-2006 2:00 PM


Percy
quote:
How is this substantively different from the ID claim that because DNA is information, and because all information has an intelligent source, therefore DNA must have had an intelligent source?
Unless there is some substantive way in which this is different, the same answers apply. The most significant issue is the one Wounded King already touched on, that all information garnered from nature is encoded.
The main point of this thread is that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. To this date.
DNA is a code, by all definitions of the word, so as far as we know, this fact leads us to the conclusion that a concious mind encoded DNA.
I am not saying this is proof, infact, it is more lack of proof. All you would need to do to shoot this down is produce one naturally generated code.
Please keep in mind, I am no enemy of evolution, I just question it, like anyone should. It is a theory, not a fact. It deserves to be questioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-15-2006 2:00 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 9:29 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2006 12:18 PM tdcanam has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 220 (322168)
06-16-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 8:40 AM


I don't see how any objections to viewing DNA as an encoding of information as having much support, so I don't think you need spend much time arguing for it.
The primary objection is to when you say things like this:
tdcanam writes:
Only intelligently designed systems map 1:1 to Shannon's model. (From The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, 1998).
This is most certainly untrue. You're referring to A Mathematical Theory of Communication, written by Claude Shannon in 1948, not 1998. Click the link and look for the word "intelligent" or any of its other forms in the paper. It isn't there. The reason it isn't there is because Shannon never argued for an intelligent origin for information.
It is your claim that information and codes must have intelligent sources that is the primary objection. As was explained in several messages, all of reality is encoded information, for example, star light and tree rings. This is the objection to which you want to respond.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 8:40 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:29 AM Percy 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