Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

quote:

---

Portions of DNA are often described using the letters 'A', 'C', 'G', 'T'. This representation in letters is a code. The DNA is itself sometimes referred to as a genetic code. That's because humans have designated it as a code.

​

If you want to say that DNA is a code, then it is indeed a human constructed code. The decision to designate it as a code (as a realization of the genetic code) is the construction that makes DNA a code. The DNA is a code by virtue of that designation, and by virtue of the way humans use it, not by virtue of the way it works in biochemistry. In terms of the biochemistry, the DNA is simply part of a causal mechanism.

---

Not really, DNA works wether we watch it work or not. Much like an anti virus system on your computer. It is a program written by a consious mind, but it performs it's function without human help after it is put into use.DNA doesn't care what symbols you give it, it still transmits a specific message and it gets decoded, wether you know the symbols or not. It transmits information wether you place your own symbols on it or not.

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.

In the case of the relative age of craters, the code is very simple. The ones on top are newer. It's a very simple code.--Percy

No. Not bogus.Tree rings are codes.Codes that are traced back to the DNA of a tree. A product of DNA.Starlight has no agreed upon set of symbols that is encoded into it and gets decoded by something. We can gather info. from it based on what we know, but if we don't bother learning what stars are made of, what light is, what color light is given off by a entity burning at a certain temp. than what is a star transmitting a code to? And what does it have say?If I don't bother learning to speak German, German's continue to talk, just as DNA would continue to talk even if we didn't know how.Chaos, fractals and complex systems: They produce stalagmites, stalactites, tornados, hurricanes, erosion, turbulence, sand dunes, rivers, ocean waves, planetary orbits, snowflakes and crystals. All of these things occur naturally with no help from a designer; they are excellent examples of self-organization. However none of these things produce codes. There is an infinite chasm between the most complicated forms of chaos and even the simplest codes. Codes have an entire dimension of order that chaos doesn't have: Symbolic Information.Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.A strand of DNA in a skin cell that falls from your body contains a plan for a human being (you), even though neither the skin cell nor the strand of DNA are human beings. This is what is specifically mean by the phrase "independent of the communication medium." A book represents more than paper and ink, because it contains plans and ideas and instructions via coded information. Even if the topic of the book is paper or ink chemistry, or instructions for printing books, it still contains plans and ideas independent of the paper and ink it's printed on.

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.

Language/code is confined to the four levels of language which are from the lowest level to the highest; statistics/alphabet, syntax/grammar, semantics/meaning, pragmatics/intent.Yes, a code is an agreed upon system of symbols, sounds, gestures, etc. that express intent.To express intent, I get an idea, an intent, I back it through the four levels untill I get to alphabet/statistics. I then encode my intent in alphabet form. Then I transmit the code to you (the whole reason I encoded my intent was to transmit it to you, it had intended purpose). You recieve the code and, going through the four levels bottom to top, you read the agreed upon alphabet that is arranged in an agreed upon system in order to recieve my intended message. My intent.

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.

So be it then.With that definition, your statement that DNA is a code is an unsupported assertion.

How? It is as much information in a code as DNA.How about the information in water molecules?

No evidence that ANYBODY did. It was due to variation of duplication followed by a filter of natural selection.

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.

quote:

---

How? It is as much information in a code as DNA.

​

How about the information in water molecules?

---

I suggest you go back and read all of my posts. All of these questions have been answered in detail.

So far, all of the questions being proposed to me have been answered in detail already, they have just not been read.I would like the input of those who are serious about this and have answers for my problem, or possibly agree with me that this is indeed a problem.I believe those people will go back and read all of my posts and get a true picture of what I am proposing.I am not really interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, and that is what I will be doing for a month if I keep having to repost old info for people who haven't read it. I want answers or insight.Please read all the posts by myself and then talk. I think this is a ligit problem, and would like real input without having to repeat the samething over and over again.Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.

I already rebutted this back in Message 17: Moving on: DNA nucleotide codes were no more agreed upon than starlight frequencies. We had to decipher each code. For example, starlight contains a code that tells us what elements made up the star - they're called absorption lines: It bears an uncanny resemblance to a bar code, one of your examples of a human-designed code, which appears to be your entire argument. You think that codes can only be the types of codes humans design. What you're actually doing is taking the definition of "human designed code" and claiming only "human designed codes" are codes. Clearly you're wrong.--Percy

So far, all of the questions being proposed to me have been answered in detail already, they have just not been read.I would like the input of those who are serious about this and have answers for my problem, or possibly agree with me that this is indeed a problem.I believe those people will go back and read all of my posts and get a true picture of what I am proposing.I am not really interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, and that is what I will be doing for a month if I keep having to repost old info for people who haven't read it. I want answers or insight.Please read all the posts by myself and then talk. I think this is a ligit problem, and would like real input without having to repeat the samething over and over again.