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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 196 of 220 (325736)
06-24-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
06-24-2006 9:07 AM


Re: Percy
I agree. It's tdcanam who is arguing from a communications standpoint. DNA is an encoding of information.
Actually, it's Wikipedia (the source you've now quoted countless times) that is also arguing from a communications stand point. It specifically states that codes apply to communications. There is also a link to a thousand other definitions, but I don't believe you were using any of those.
The GACT nucleotide sequences of DNA when grouped into subsequences of 3 to encode for amino acids and into genes to encode for proteins are strong analogs for letters, words and sentences.
WE gave it those letters. It is really just one funny shaped protein after another. We said, "hey, all these funny shapes will have this letter, these other funny shapes will get a different letter." There is no code in DNA. DNA is not encoded information (to be encoded requires encoding). Any similarities it has are as meaningless as the similarities between a bowl and a frying pan.
DNA is not encoded, and any appearence would seem as though it came from us assigning "code letters" to the funny and strange shaped proteins.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 06-24-2006 9:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 7:26 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 220 (325739)
06-24-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ramoss
06-24-2006 10:23 AM


Re: start and stop condons
Now, if that tidbit is removed, then DNA might be a code. If that tidbit is there, then there is no evidnece that DNA is a code, because there is no evidence it was 'created by a concious mind'.
Actually, I think that's tdcanam's entire arguement.
  • DNA is code
  • Codes are made of concious minds
  • DNA was made of concious mind
Tdcanam is using DNA as evidence of a Designer.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ramoss, posted 06-24-2006 10:23 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 198 of 220 (326036)
06-25-2006 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Jon
06-24-2006 4:51 PM


Re: Percy
Invictus writes:
Actually, it's Wikipedia (the source you've now quoted countless times) that is also arguing from a communications stand point. It specifically states that codes apply to communications.
I haven't said anything that contradicts the Wikipedia definition, and the definition isn't implying what you're claiming. It didn't say that codes apply to communications, though of course they do, but if they had said it that way it would imply that codes don't apply outside the field of communications.
But Wikipedia didn't say it that way. It gave the definition of code used by the communications field, a person driven endeavor. But the definition of code use by the field of communications is valid in contexts having nothing to do with people.
WE gave it those letters. It is really just one funny shaped protein after another.
Nucleotides aren't proteins, but they *are* funny shaped chemicals, this is from the Wikipedia definition of nucleotide:
And yes, we gave the DNA nucleotides the letter names GACT, but those are just names, not definitions. We give names to everything, and the nature of those things doesn't change when we give them names. Different languages give different names for the same thing, and it all comes down to Shakespeare ("A rose by any other name...").
By the way, if you follow that link to the nucleotide definition you'll see that one of the roles of DNA is in signaling. Gee, sounds like communications!
We said, "hey, all these funny shapes will have this letter, these other funny shapes will get a different letter." There is no code in DNA.
You know that rule you gave just before you said, "There is no code in DNA"? The one about one funny shaped letter yielding another funny shaped letter? As in the rules I gave before like "A => T"? That's the definition of a code. A code is a set of rules for transforming encoded information from one form (GACT) to another (CTGA in this case). Of course, in the table we put our names for these nucleotides, but the names are just stand-ins for the actual nucleotides.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Jon, posted 06-24-2006 4:51 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 06-25-2006 10:46 AM Percy has replied
 Message 203 by Jon, posted 06-25-2006 11:30 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 199 of 220 (326079)
06-25-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
06-25-2006 7:26 AM


Re: Percy
As in the rules I gave before like "A => T"? That's the definition of a code.
So, then, is the code the DNA molecule? Or is the code the rules we use to recognize, for instance, "adenine-guanine-cytosene" results in a serine residue at the appropriate primary position in a protein?
Or is that not a meaningful difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 7:26 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 12:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 200 of 220 (326109)
06-25-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
06-25-2006 10:46 AM


Re: Percy
crashfrog writes:
So, then, is the code the DNA molecule?
To be precise, DNA is not a code but encoded information. But how often is it necessary to be precise? In most discussions you can call DNA a code and it won't matter that this isn't quite correct. In other words, just as you implied, in many contexts the difference isn't important.
But in this discussion I think more precision is necessary.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 06-25-2006 10:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ramoss, posted 06-25-2006 1:34 PM Percy has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 201 of 220 (326131)
06-25-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
06-25-2006 12:47 PM


Re: Percy
The one thing I am sure you will agree on. No matter if you call DNA a 'code' or 'encoded information', it is a logical fallacy to assume that DNA is a code, and all codes were created by a concious mind, therefore DNA was created by a concious mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 12:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 3:02 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 202 of 220 (326156)
06-25-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ramoss
06-25-2006 1:34 PM


Re: Percy
It is tdcanam who is arguing that codes must be the product of a conscious mind. But what he's calling codes are actually encoded information. Phrased properly, he's claiming that encoded information can only be produced by a conscious mind. This is obviously incorrect, as the numerous examples provided in this thread have shown.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ramoss, posted 06-25-2006 1:34 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 220 (326230)
06-25-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
06-25-2006 7:26 AM


Re: Percy
I have a coin-counting machine. It works by seperating the coins based on their size and weight. A quarter-sized hole will only hold a quarter, etc. Is this a code? I don't think so. Is it encoded information? I don't think so.
That's all that happens in DNA. The bonds form where they can form. Sure every once and a while a bond forms where it shouldn't, just like a dime occasionally ends up in the penny stack.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 7:26 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Wounded King, posted 06-26-2006 6:27 AM Jon has replied
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-26-2006 9:33 AM Jon has replied

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


Message 204 of 220 (326331)
06-26-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Jon
06-25-2006 11:30 PM


Sorting
Would you consider your coin sorting machine to be equivalent to a sorting algorithm?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Jon, posted 06-25-2006 11:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Jon, posted 06-26-2006 6:37 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 220 (326332)
06-26-2006 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Wounded King
06-26-2006 6:27 AM


Re: Sorting
I'm not sure what a sorting algorithm is, perhaps you could explain it to me.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Wounded King, posted 06-26-2006 6:27 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 206 of 220 (326369)
06-26-2006 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Jon
06-25-2006 11:30 PM


Levels of Abstraction
Invictus writes:
I have a coin-counting machine. It works by seperating the coins based on their size and weight. A quarter-sized hole will only hold a quarter, etc. Is this a code? I don't think so. Is it encoded information? I don't think so.
Wounded King was correct to make the association with sorting algorithms, which maybe he'll explain in detail, so I'll just say that a sorting algorithm is a sequence of rules to follow to sort collections of objects (interpret the word "object" liberally) into order according to some criteria of comparison.
The point I'll make is that I can't find a perspective by which to view any of the processes related to DNA as a type of sorting algorithm, so I'm afraid this analogy doesn't work for me. I had better luck making sense of what you said next:
That's all that happens in DNA. The bonds form where they can form. Sure every once and a while a bond forms where it shouldn't, just like a dime occasionally ends up in the penny stack.
This is actually Quetzal's point, that it's just chemistry. My reply (already provided somewhere earlier in this thread) was that he is absolutely right, at one level of abstraction it is just chemistry. But the chemical perspective is not the only level of abstraction. As I said to Quetzal, the fact that music is just notes in no way invalidates higher levels of abstraction like measures, phrases, themes and symphonies. Even notes are just abstractions, since notes can be deconstructed into vibrational frequencies, just as Quetzal's chemistry can be deconstructed into atomic level interactions.
One of the moderators pointed out that "Percy" is not a subtopic of this thread, so I've changed the subtopic from "Re: Percy" to "Levels of Abstraction".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Jon, posted 06-25-2006 11:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ramoss, posted 06-26-2006 10:22 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 06-26-2006 11:14 PM Percy has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 207 of 220 (326398)
06-26-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
06-26-2006 9:33 AM


Re: Levels of Abstraction
The 'sorting allgorithem' is natural selection based on success in reproduction. If a certain variation of DNA leads to better success for the oraganism to pass on that sequence of DNA to it's offspring, then that gene is 'sorted for'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-26-2006 9:33 AM Percy has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 220 (326684)
06-26-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
06-26-2006 9:33 AM


Re: Levels of Abstraction
Chemical bonds form where they fit. It's like a key. Three electrons needed and three electrons will arive.
|-|-|-|

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-26-2006 9:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 06-27-2006 10:28 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 214 by jaywill, posted 07-05-2006 12:35 AM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 209 of 220 (326687)
06-26-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by tdcanam
06-22-2006 8:57 AM


Should I say "tdcanned"? and make fun of your e-name?
I find the attempted humor of your title juvenile at best. One of the forum guidelines is respect of the others. Perhaps it was a typo?
I explained this in a recent post, 4 mabey 5 ago.
No, actually you danced around this issue. As I pointed out, what you have as a logical result of your premises is a direct contradiction -- that means you can't just "explain" it, you need to either show the logical structure is invalid that generates the contradiction or accept that your premise is invalidated. If the premise is invalidated you need to change it. There is no in-between. Continuing to assert your invalid position does not make it any more valid, it just makes your argument ridiculous.
Notice these statements:
tdcanam writes:
Message 114
Did I say tree rings were codes? If I did, I must have been drinking, (happens).
tdcanam writes:
Message 11
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?
The DNA does not create the differences in the tree rings, plus you admit that DNA is not intelligent:
tdcanam writes:
Message 111
DNA has no consciousness.
By your own words the OBVIOUS conclusion is that the tree rings are encoded by an unconscious non-intelligent process, a process that combines the way trees grow (involves more than "unconscious" DNA) with the climate and seasonal (and nutritional) variations to provide information that scientists can decode to determine what the past was like at different times.
tdcanam writes:
Message 1
1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
There is a message (seasonal and climate changes with time), a set of symbols (the rings are more sophisticated than dots and dashes used in Morse Code), a means of transmission (preserved tree rings), and a reader (scientists). Thus tree rings are -- by YOUR definition -- an example of a code produced by an unconscious non-intelligent process.
tdcanam writes:
Message 1
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.
Is thus OBVIOUSLY falsified. This cannot be "explained" away -- it is falsified.
You continue to waffle and equivocate on this issue. As predicted?
RAZD writes:
Because one of the founding premises of your argument has been invalidated your whole argument has been invalidated: it is logically false to base any conclusion on it.
Now we can watch your dance of equivocation, "moving the goalposts" and "red herring and strawmen" comments or you can admit that the argument is falsified. Your choice.
So far all I have seen since my message is denial and "moving the goalposts" and "red herring and strawmen" comments from you.
Again, read my recent posts to clear up any misunderstandings and to get a better picture of code.
I have. They are no more logically sound than the one that has been invalidated. You have yet to "clear up" and of YOUR misunderstandings.
All you have done since is repeated an invalidated argument, asserting it is still somehow valid. It isn't. Pretending otherwise does not change the reality of the situation, it just makes your position ridiculous.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 8:57 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 210 of 220 (326779)
06-27-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Jon
06-26-2006 11:14 PM


Re: Levels of Abstraction
Invictus writes:
Chemical bonds form where they fit. It's like a key. Three electrons needed and three electrons will arive.
|-|-|-| <-- hole
This is a code. In fact, the analogy to keys that you use is apt, since keys are a type of mechanical code.
Musical notes are a different thing. With musical notes, there is information (the vibrations) which are being encoded into symbols on a page. Then they are later decoded on stage as the pianist reads them and decodes them into vibrations.
You don't seem to realize that you're describing things that fit the definition of code to a T, then concluding, "Not a code."
Invictus writes:
It would be like saying math is a code.
Math *is* a code. In fact, most of the the encoding operations used in digital design, like hamming codes and so forth, are mathematical transformations. Remember the definition of a code, a set of rules to transform encoded information from one form to another. Mathematics is one of the most obvious ways for specifying such transformations.
What if I wrote:
.. + ... = -
Would you say that's a code?
Of course it's not a code. A code is a set of transformation rules.
I am content if you reject that DNA is encoded information that can be decoded by a set of transformation rules. I'm much more interested in tdcanam's position that codes can only be created by a conscious intelligence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 06-26-2006 11:14 PM Jon 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