coded information in DNA

mark, But we can exclude man, therefore we are left with "other-intelligence." This argument can not identify the intelligence. Only that it is the only known available explanation.

WordBeLogos, Nope, it could have evolved. This is why your overreliance on premise #2 is flawed, leading you to a similarly flawed conclusion. There was a phylogeny based on the genetic code (try as I might I can't find the thing) & it's variants, & guess what? It matched the accepted phylogeny of life. Such congruence is evidence that it did evolve. Do you have evidence it was created?MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi WordBeLogos, This sounds like you are claiming I was artificially made...?I believe my parents did have sex, not that I want to think about that, but they did, and now I'm here - naturally.So you see in the case of ME, chemistry - human reproduction - came before the "coded information" that is me - and it was all natural. First, the elements that construct the "coded information" are found to exist prior to the coded information being found on this planet.So the laws of physics and chemistry pre-date DNA.Now, wouldn't you agree that nucleosynthesis, which is how these elements come to exist, fits quite well within your definition of coded information?The definition you provided:

quote:

---

The formal definition of a code according to Perlwitz and Waterman is a set of symbols that uniquely map a point in space "A" to a point in space "B." In other words there is special symbolic correspondence between a letter or word (idea) and a real physical entity.

---

The description of the Periodic Table of Elements

quote:

---

The layout of the periodic table demonstrates recurring ("periodic") chemical properties. Elements are listed in order of increasing atomic number (i.e., the number of protons in the atomic nucleus). Rows are arranged so that elements with similar properties fall into the same columns (groups or families). According to quantum mechanical theories of electron configuration within atoms, each row (period) in the table corresponded to the filling of a quantum shell of electrons. There are progressively longer periods further down the table, grouping the elements into s-, p-, d- and f-blocks to reflect their electron configuration.

​

In printed tables, each element is usually listed with its element symbol and atomic number; many versions of the table also list the element's atomic mass and other information, such as its abbreviated electron configuration, electronegativity and most common valence numbers.

---

The description of nucleosynthesis

quote:

---

Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from preexisting nucleons (protons and neutrons). It is thought that the primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark-gluon plasma from the Big Bang as it cooled below two trillion degrees. A few minutes afterward, starting with only protons and neutrons, nuclei up to lithium and beryllium (both with mass number 7) were formed but only in relatively small amounts. This first process of primordial nucleosynthesis may also be called nucleogenesis. The subsequent nucleosynthesis of the elements (including all carbon, all oxygen, etc.) occurs primarily in stars, either by nuclear fusion (including neutron capture) or nuclear fission.

---

As per the above 2 descriptions I think:The Periodic Table of Elements are an example of: "a set of symbols that uniquely map a point in space "A" to a point in space "B."How: The table shows us a progressive order of increased atoms that take us from point A(hydrogen) to point B(helium). Using this method of going from point A to point B we can easily progress up the table of elements.That Nucleosynthesis is an example of: "there is special symbolic correspondence between a letter or word (idea) and a real physical entity.How: By the process of nucleosynthesis, which combines different atoms in high temperatures, we get all of the different elements found in the Periodic Table. It also follows a law of increased atoms, or increased complexity, as the elements get heavier.Furthermore, the letter (H) gives us a description of the gas hydrogen - which represents the physical entity.And by understanding nucleosynthesis we understand the orgin of all the physical elements.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, by the definition that you provided, I think I have shown 2 things that fit the bill for "coded information"...Show me where I'm wrong, I challenge you.- oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Well, we can watch mutations producing new information.If that isn't good enough for you, though, then using a mode of reasoning which we know to be fallacious is not a substitute for observation. Which, for some reason, happens faster in the presence of certain chemicals.

Hi WordBeLogos, and welcome to the fray.I see you're having fun with this old saw. The DNA molecule seems complex, it seems to be a blueprint for life, therefore it must be a code. The same way we account for the coded symbolic information in H₂O.Atoms tend to bond to other atoms in specific patterns based on their atomic number and the available combinations.A salt crystal grows by assembling Chlorine and Sodium atoms in specific patterns.A snow flake grows by assembling hydrogen and oxygen atoms already bonded into water molecules in specific patterns.The more complex the molecule the more different patterns it can make, and these different patterns can combine with other molecules to make more molecules.The laws of physics and chemistry tell us that atoms will bond in certain ways in certain environments (acid, base, hot, cold, dry, wet, etc etc etc).There are no DNA molecules that do not follow these basic patterns of combination.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Your computer is an inanimate object which cannot come together with its programming without the intervention of an outside agent. The same can be said for all codes that you describe. This distinguishes them from DNA which comes together all by itself according to well-known laws of chemistry.You need to explain why chemistry, genetics and evolution are insufficient to account for the existence of DNA. Chemistry explains how DNA works. Genetics describes how DNA changes. Evolution explains why certain combinations of DNA will tend to be more prevalent than others. None of these explanations require appeal to any intelligent agent. You are attempting to define the field of inquiry and claim victory based on that limited field. You are ignoring well-understood natural processes that are observed on a daily basis. I've never seen anyone successfully defend any scientific theory while ignoring the evidence. Nothing about your argument makes me suspect you are the exception.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This has gone from "Can a code exist without a creator" to "Have we seen the creation of DNA".You really should stop dancing around, and stick to the issue at hand. It's funny that I couldn't find a definition that matches the one you have just provided, and I checked dictionary.com, and my own Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.What's even more interesting is when I checked both sources, not one of them provided an example of a code Link Here that wasn't created by humans, with the exception of the Genetic Code.Since we are discussing the Genetic Code, I think it fitting we pull up the definition provided for the term:

quote:

---

Dictionary.com
genetic code
—noun

​

the biochemical instructions that translate the genetic information
present as a linear sequence of nucleotide triplets in messenger RNA
into the correct linear sequence of amino acids for the synthesis of a
particular peptide chain or protein

---

Seems pretty straight-forward. Biology, Physics, and Chemistry all account for how DNA operates, and how it originated. The bonding of nucleotide triplets is certainly one of the most well understood processes in these modern fields. With the exception of the fact that DNA self replicates, and it's molecular construction (which you deem as the code) is understood within the realm of biology and chemistry. There is no more reason to believe DNA was created by an intelligent agent, than there is to believe that Water was created by an intelligent agent. Which demonstrates why your second premise is a false one, in that we can see the bonding of nucleotides occur without any intelligent agent involved at all.ABE: Your statement:
"All codes are created by a conscious mind.."
"All molecules are created by a conscious mind..""..there is no natural process known to science.."
"..I do not know of a natural process known to science, that very well may be known, as I am a layman..""that creates coded information."
"that creates molecules."This is an argument from ignorance, and petitio principii (Begging the Question) in that your Premise is your conclusion. We have already demonstrated that the Genetic Code is no more special a molecule than water.I would highly recommend you do some actual research in the field of biology, before continuing forward.Edited by Michamus, : formatting issue.Edited by Michamus, : second formatting issue

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

We can see DNA develop and change today. Oftentimes mutations will add information to the genome. Mutations that have been shown to be random. Thus random chemical processes are adding information all the time. Micro-organisms that develop new traits and abilities. The speckled moths which mutated to blend into smoggy city environment. Do you need any more proof of information coming from natural processes?

Do you know what Shannon Information is? If I take a cube of ice and then hit it with a hammer, is there more or less information afterwards?

Hi WordBeLogos,Sorry to reply to an old message, but I think this thread may have gotten off to a bad start due to some unfortunate definitions and incorrect interpretations. This one is probably the most fundamentally misleading definition: This definition looks like it comes from information theory, and it is taylored for its explanatory power in communicating the concepts of information theory in a digital world. It is not a general definition of coded information, but it's okay as long as it is not interpreted too strictly. For example, if a military sentry is supposed to make the sound of a bird if he sees an enemy force using increasing volume and pitch according to its size, then that is coded information. Your definition of "a system of symbols" might be used to exclude such codes if interpreted to mean only sets of symbols you can write on paper like (C A G T) or (0 1) and so forth.And so we have to correct and extend what you say next: But except for DNA your examples are all human constructs that we know can't arise naturally, and so this is begging the question. But you included radio signals in your list, and the natural world has no trouble producing radio signals, so allow me to focus on that.If you're using a wireless router to connect to the Internet, then your computer's network card is using radio signals to exchange coded information with the router in the form of 0's and 1's. Clearly this fits your definition of a code, but that definition is taylored for the information age that at heart communicates in binary.But now turn on your AM radio, where sound is modulated into the amplitude of a radio signal. No symbols here, but somehow information is being encoded, communicated, and decoded. See the inherent inadequacy of your definition?Now imagine that instead of turning on your AM radio that you turn on your radio telescope and point it at the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. Now you're receiving and attempting to decode the information encoded in the radio signals from that galaxy. Where did the information come from? What did the encoding? Where did the encoding system come from? Whatever answers you come up with, unless your answers are all "God did it" then they will be natural answers based upon our understanding of the laws of the natural world. In the context of information theory, this is clearly false. Ideas, concepts, plans, these all have meaning. Meaning is a human construct and is completely separate from coding systems. Let me quote Shannon himself from his landmark paper A Mathematical System of Communication: The fundamental reality is that the natural world is full of codes that communicate information, and DNA is probably the most complex and interesting example we've found so far.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve clarity of wireless router para.Edited by Percy, : Grammar in last para.Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

quote:

---

This is in contrast to DNA, which codes for every inheritable trait. It codes, in advance, whether your eyes are green or blue. Whether your skin is white or red or black or yellow. Whether you are male or female. Whether your blood is RH Negative or O Positive. Whether you go bald or not, whether your chest is hairy, whether you are short or tall. The physical characteristics and biochemical instructions that DNA specifies in any particular instance would fill a very large book. DNA codes for these characteristics the same sense that magnetic fields on your hard drive code for all our family pictures. That's because DNA is not a force, a field, or a boundary, it's a code.

---

It doesn't really code for all of this quite so specifically. The genetic code just dictates the synthesis of a series of proteins; but the organism created from the proteins can vary quite a lot depending on the chemical environment it's all taking place in. Colonial insects can produce their different castes of workers and soldiers without each needing a different genome - they just manipulate the environment in which each develops.We don't need an intelligence to arbitrarily assign meanings like 'GGGACCGAACTTCAG means blue eyes" - the code relies purely on the shape and chemical behaviour of the molecules involved. If your mRNA molecule has a codon consisting of three adenine bases, these will narually bond to three uracil bases on a tRNA molecule, because that's how the chemistry of these molecules forces them to behave. The tRNA molecule will be bonded to the amino acid lysine; again, just because the chemistry and shape of the molecule means this is what it does.Sorry if this explanation is incomplete and confused, as I don't really understand it myself. The whole process involves a variety of other molecules like enzymes and the proteins and RNA that make up ribosomes, but it all works by undirected chemistry. Molecules fit together because of their shape and because of ionic bonds; and as different molecules fit together they change shape - all of this behaviour eventually leaves us with a protein. No design is necessary.

Hi PercyLet's expand on this aspect: There are a number of different frequencies, so what makes these different "broadcasting stations" each sending out different coded information?We can also look at starlight, and in the patterns of light against frequencies we see bits of information coded in digital format - on and off - for certain segments of the spectrum. What causes that digital information to be encoded in the light spectrum?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Gravity still fits all your definitions. Just because you do not want to acknowledge it as such doesn't change any of the facts. With DNA, the chemical structures can be represented with certain symbols (C, G, T, A).
With Gravity, the physical structures can be represented with certain symbols (m, a, c, f, p, time co-ordinates, position co-ordinates...)With DNA, the information is encoded/decoded by other chemical reactions (cell duplication, biological variablility).
With Gravity, the information is encoded/decoded by other physical reactions (orbits, collisions, physical variability).With DNA the message transmitted is "how to grow."
With Gravity, the message transmitted is "how to react."DNA and Gravity are both equally independant of their communication meduims... whatever that's supposed to mean.
DNA is all chemical reactions, Gravity is all space-time. Set of symbols for object 1: m, a, time, at point "A" in space
Set of symbols for object 2: m, a, time, at point "B" in space
The information about each object is transmitted to the other via gravity. You are wrong.
I've shown just above that the gravitational field is a code which certainly does uniquely map a point in space A to a point in space B. You are wrong.
Whatever the magma flow is flowing over is decoding the information from the lava. People observing such are not required for the information to be decoded. Whether anyone is there or not does not affect the devastation caused by a magma flow.
"The volcano's erupting!"
"Save the village! Evacuate! If we're not here to decode the lava's information, everything will be fine!"
... yeah. You are wrong.
Symbols: m, a, f, p, time, co-ordinates
Encoding/decoding mechanisms: space-time
Code: gravitational equations that describe how the information is encoded and decoded by each object Depends on all it's symbols: m, a, time...
All of these are strictly defined if you have all the symbols and understand the gravitational equations. Gravity specifys all of these outcomes in advace.
Yes, there are many possibilities... just like there are with DNA.
Yes, it may be difficult to get all the initial variables... just like it can be with DNA.
Yes, the calculations may be complex and take a super-computer, or perhaps even be out of our current capabilities... just like it is with DNA.
None of this takes away from the fact that all the initial variables are there... or that it is possible to calculate the exact final position, just like DNA.
Of course, sometimes if you get too close to quantum probability-type stuff, the answers can become unclear. But, this happens exactly the same with DNA because of unpredictable mutations. Just because YOU don't know enough about gravity doesn't mean other's don't. Gravity, in fact, specifies ALL of these outcomes, the equations are indeed the code that predetermines each and every one of these things. That isn't the gravitational equation, it is merely one basic representation of it. There are many, many basic representations of the Gravity Code that make it easier to look at specific areas. However, they are all derived from the same set of symbols and the same space-time. You can ignore the Gravity Code all you want. You can't change the facts. The facts are that the definition of coded information you've provided includes the Gravity Code. You cannot form a defintion of code that includes DNA and excludes the Gravity Code, it's just not possible.Keep trying, though, I'm learning a lot about the Gravity Code by explaining it to you.

Right. So why the special pleading regarding DNA? If we can use Obama to falsify the premise that all american presidents are white, why can we not use DNA to falsify the premise that all codes are created by a conscious mind?It also vaguely smacks of moving the goal post. That is, when we find what you're looking for, you claim it's not really the answer and define a new target for us.I, for one, certainly don't trust your conclusion because not only is your premise false, but you are engaging in fallacies which undermine the validity of any argument.Try again.

Because in the first case we can disprove it by direct observation, whereas in the second case we can ... oh, OK, we can disprove it by direct observation.Still, he nearly had an argument.