Information and Genetics

So presumably by your logic there is nothing 'encoded' on a punch card containing a computer program.What can you produce from Morse code other than the original encoded text? Similarly from denrochronology you can produce a record of the events which have affected that tree. Would you consider a record to have no information encoded on it? Or a magnetic tape with a voice recording?The avatar is a beluga whale embryo, isn't he cute!!

Dillan,It's no wonder you don't want to answer the points raised by Zhimbo's post, since I think he makes it clear that the holes in the logic of Intelligent Design Creationism are gaping indeed.Your inference makes it clear that the code-like property of DNA is far more important than the trifling point that the molecule originated in nature. It seems that, despite the objections raised by Gitt and everyone at the Discovery Institute, an intricate code has been produced by nature through naturalistic processes.

quote:

---

Some of you do not want me to make analogies to other information systems that have resulted by intelligence, but rather give independent evidence that the DNA was intelligently designed.

---

No, we'd like you to make analogies to any other organism or biological structure that was produced by intelligence. You attribute to intelligence the power to create a biochemical protein template, so you must have independent knowledge that intelligence has, in fact, been responsible for the origin of other natural phenomena. I wish you would share with us this important information.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

dillan, Unfortunately, the ID argument always seems to boil down to the same reasoning - all codes are the result of intelligence, DNA is a code, therefore DNA was intelligently designed. A similar argument is made for complexity. This is a fallacy of composition that renders the argument invalid. It is therefore incumbent on the ID community to be able to test for design in order to sidestep the flaw by providing empirical evidence. As you have pointed out, this is impossible. So what are you left with? An untestable, unfalsifiable, & therefore unknowable fallacy of composition.You can introduce any definition & explanations of information & codes you like, you can introduce as many non-empirically based argumentation you want, you can write books on it if you'd like. But at the end of the day, it will always boil down to the aforementioned logical flaws.All that is required to destroy an argument is to show it is guilty of a logical fallacy, the maker of that argument should then cease to make that argument, right? Why then do ID'ers persist in making the same flaws over & over?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

quote:

---

Easy, given a large enough tree. You'd could just make wide dark rings 1, and narrow dark rings 0. Then you could encode anything you like.

---

How?

quote:

---

So presumably by your logic there is nothing 'encoded' on a punch card containing a computer program.

---

No, that’s not my logic at all. Of course punch cards contain a code.

quote:

---

What can you produce from Morse code other than the original encoded text?

---

One could easily produce a blueprint using morse code. It’s a language, full of syntax & meaning.

quote:

---

Similarly from denrochronology you can produce a record of the events which have affected that tree.

---

Big whoop. This does not make it a code. Can you use Tree++ to write a program?

quote:

---

Would you consider a record to have no information encoded on it?

---

No. This would be a code. Know which one?

quote:

---

Or a magnetic tape with a voice recording?

---

No. This would also be a code. Know which one?

quote:

---

The avatar is a beluga whale embryo, isn't he cute!!

---

Looks yummy.

I don't know, you said I could manipulate the tree. Well, what you could do would be expose the tree to varying growth conditions during it's lifetime so that the rings turned out in the pattern you wanted. The rings would then be both a record of that growing cycle and a blueprint for your computer.However the throughput here is going to be terrible; 1 bit per year.

Fred:Do you deny the fact that tree rings do, in fact, confirm - accurately - the precise years of catastrophic events? When I was little, they had a cross section of a tree trunk in Jesse Jones park, a park in southeast Texas. You could see the precise years - and count them - when hurricanes struck. It was right there, and clearly visible to the naked eye. Anybody who can count can quite clearly match it up. If there was some big "tree ring fraud", don't you think that some nice forest ranger would have exposed it by now?Finally, about your "tree++" argument. First off, as was pointed out, you can simply expose the tree to different growth conditions in its life, and it will code that information by how much it grows in its rings. However, you seem obsessed that there has to be intent to leave information, to actually leave that information. That is nonsense. Police work would be physically impossible if that were true. Do you think a bank robber means to leave his footprint at the crime scene, or a murderer leave a drop of blood under the victim's fingernails? Of course not. There was no intent involved. It was a side effect of things that happened. When a large tree falls, it fells the underbrush beneath. Flying over a forest, you can use gaps in the woods to determine where large trees have fallen. That's information. Did the tree mean to give you information? Of course not.I could go on for weeks here... information is left by processes *all the time* without intent.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hi all,Would it not be pertinent to define "code"?Mark

quote:

---

CrashFrog: I don't know, you said I could manipulate the tree. Well, what you could do would be expose the tree to varying growth conditions during it's lifetime so that the rings turned out in the pattern you wanted.

---

Ah, so you are programming in a pattern! Perhaps you suspected you were being set up. I was trying to make a point and I hope you see it. Tree rings are not a code unless you manipulate the tree to follow some pattern that you decide the syntax and meaning for. If you could manipulate the rings to produce a language or specifically a code (in your example the code is binary) you could then encode a blueprint for something. This should clearly illustrate why tree rings are not a code.

quote:

---

Rei: Do you deny the fact that tree rings do, in fact, confirm - accurately - the precise years of catastrophic events?

---

I have no idea. Whether or not they confirm precise years does not make tree rings a code! I smell a strawman around the corner

quote:

---

Rei: However, you seem obsessed that there has to be intent to leave information, to actually leave that information. That is nonsense. Police work would be physically impossible if that were true. Do you think a bank robber means to leave his footprint at the crime scene, or a murderer leave a drop of blood under the victim's fingernails? Of course not. There was no intent involved. It was a side effect of things that happened. When a large tree falls, it fells the underbrush beneath. Flying over a forest, you can use gaps in the woods to determine where large trees have fallen. That's information. Did the tree mean to give you information? Of course not.

---

It appears the sensory apparatus attached to my nose is fully functional. Rei, this a strawman. A code is a manifestation of information. I do not deny that tree rings convey a type of information, but this information is certainly not a code!To be honest I can’t believe I am even arguing this. I honestly believe that if I asked any of you here 10 years ago if tree rings are a code, before information science began reeking havoc on Neo-Darwinism, you would have immediately replied of course not! I will also repeat, despite the attempt to label this an appeal to authority fallacy, that I know a good deal of information scientists, both creos and evos, and not one of them thinks tree rings are a code. Only evolutionists debating on internet message boards seem to think so

Hi Mark,

quote:

---

Would it not be pertinent to define "code"?

---

It sure would, and I already did when I first popped in to this thread.In a nutshell, a code is a set of symbols with syntax and meaning that can be used to produce a blueprint to build something.Here is the applicable Webster's definition:3 a : a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings
4 : GENETIC CODE
5 : a set of instructions for a computer

Hi Fred, all,Does everyone agree with Fred's definition of code in the above post?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

quote:

---

all codes are the result of intelligence, DNA is a code, therefore DNA was intelligently designedThis is a fallacy of composition that renders the argument invalid.

---

ROTFL!All objects fall when dropped, a rock is an object, therefore the rock will drop.According to Mark, this is a fallacy.

quote:

---

All that is required to destroy an argument is to show it is guilty of a logical fallacy, the maker of that argument should then cease to make that argument, right?

---

I submit that Mark should hereby reject the theory of gravity!

No, it becomes a code that encodes a blueprint for a computer when I apply my intelligence to it.It was always a code. Prior to my action it coded data about growth conditions during the tree's life. I just made it code for something else.

Then by your own definition, DNA isn't a code. DNA has no "meaning".Your dictionary game is simply equivocation on the word "code".

dupe post deleted.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-05-2003]