Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

True. But the ribossome do not have a conciouss mind. since the decoder doesn't have a mind, I take it's also possible that the coder doesn't have a mind. (That's why assuming intent is not warranted here). In evolution theory this coding is created by a natural process called natural selection. this is a testable idea that has been confirmed by observations acumulated over many, many years. That's what makes it a good theory. what observations do you have confirming your theory that DNA was encoded by a conciouss mind?

quote:

---

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:

---

No "we" did not. We can put any symbols we like on DNA's code, but it has it's own that goes on being coded and decoded wether we read it or not.Again, I have already put this into detail in a previous post.

quote:

---

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.

---

The bar code is encoded with information pertaining to products etc., it has specific info. describing, representing or designating.What is the starlight talking to? The bar code wa specifically designed with the intent to be decoded by use ofr utility purposes. DNA is decoded by ribosomes wether we know what DNA is saying or not.What is starlight saying to whom? Nothing.

quote:

---

True. But the ribossome do not have a conciouss mind. since the decoder doesn't have a mind, I take it's also possible that the coder doesn't have a mind. (That's why assuming intent is not warranted here). In evolution theory this coding is created by a natural process called natural selection. this is a testable idea that has been confirmed by observations acumulated over many, many years. That's what makes it a good theory. what observations do you have confirming your theory that DNA was encoded by a conciouss mind?

---

Ribosomes don't need one. Recievers don't need to be concious. Even senders don't need to be concious.Only the designer of the code need be consious. A antivirus program does all it needs to after we design it without our help.Email is encoded by us and sent off using a program encoded by us, but it has a decoder that detects mutations and checks/rechecks the origional to make sure the decoder, which is not consious, has decoded the message correctly.

In light of the recent posts from the thread's originator, this is just a pre-emptive advisory to everyone to please follow the Forum Guidelines. In particular I'm thinking of the guidelines that require remaining cordial and civil, and that request that you argue constructively to move the discussion forward.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If there is a designer. And if there is no designer, then there is no intent. And acording to your own definition, there would be no code. I think this circular line of reasoning you've been using has already been shown insufficient. Do you have anything better?

I alluded to this before, but maybe I wasn't very clear - I don't see how you can make this assertion without assuming the very thing that you're trying to prove - intelligent design is the origin of DNA.As it stands now, it's incorrect to say that "all information/codes to date come from a conscious mind." The accurate statement is that we have two kinds of codes:1) codes that are known to come from intelligent minds, like ours.
2) codes that are not known to come from intelligent minds. DNA would be one such code, because at best (for your position) we do not know the origin of DNA; at worst (for your position) we can confidently assert that the origin of DNA is entirely natural and unintelligent. Sure. But don't you think it deserved to be questioned honestly?

Indeed it does, and the chemical properties of DNA allow many interactions other than those that produce a double helix. The rest of your response about messages only serves to show what a rubbish analogy it is. Contrary to your analogy in the case of DNA the medium is the message and its chemical properties allow for its perpetuation and propagation.Are tree rings not a product of the design of a tree?No more so than the the geologic layers are a product of the 'design' of the planet.Have you posted on IIDB as pmarshall? This line of argument and a number of your quotes, especially those from Yockey, remind me strongly of this thread I participated in.Since Yockey acscribes the generation of the information encoded in DNA to a standing Markov process why do you think you can ignore the opinion of 'the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics', using what I can only assume is a really unusual meaning of bioinformatics which generally is not overly concerned with information theory in its day to day use, in this particular regard?TTFN,WK

The same entity who encoded the DNA of the individuals from 3 billion years ago.You missed my point, so let me say it again, this time with no embellishments:

---

---

Now, for some embellishments. The same level of weakness is not present when we are identifying 5,000 year old languages written in stone. They are neither self-replicating, nor are they older than all known conscious entities, nor are they 'translated' by unconscious entites.DNA has these qualities that significantly affect the strength of your conclusion. They weaken the confidence we have in the conclusion to such an extent as to render the conclusion worthless.This is a crippling blow to your argument and this is the issue you need to address. The age of DNA is not relevant other than its relative age to known conscious beings.DNA is significantly different from human codes. One of these differences is directly related to the code itself: it is self-replicating. This means the induction is very weakHopefully you'll now understand the criticism being levelled at your argument and you'll respond in manner relevant to it. If you are still confused, I can explain it again in a different manner.

The ribosomes are not sitting their, interpreting the "code", and then deciding what how to act on that interpretation. Rather, there are just causal processes at work. It is only "decoding", because our explanation of DNA considers it a code. And it is only "transcription" because that is how our explanation describes the processes. But take away the human observer and his explanations, and what you really have are causal processes. No coding, decoding, transcription is involved except in the sense that our scientific explanation has chosen to describe this as decoding and transcription.

Yes, just like starlight. And the details of rebuttals have been put into previous posts. Starlight is encoded with information pertaining to composition, temperature, age, etc. I think you have some needless constraints about what comprises a code. As I said earlier, you appear to be claiming that the only codes are human designed codes. This isn't true.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix grammar.

Firstly, I haven't read beyond this reply yet so if I repeat something that has already been said then sorry. I haven't had time to read the other pages yet. Unless some distinction can be made between an Intelligent Design and a Natural "Design" then it isn't really reasonable to claim that something came from one thing or another, and it's not even reasonable to assume. But since your premise that "All knowncodes are intelligently designed" is being challeneged elsewhere this is all academic until it is resolved. I'll let that debate take its course. Yes, I know. Don't worry, I'm not placing you under the banner of "mad christian creationist that must be argued with at all costs". Hopefully I never do that to anyone. I think you misunderstood. I was refering solely to the logic I mentioned when I said that it was impossible to come to the conclusion of a natural code using that logic.If it is possible to identify the difference between something that was created "intelligently" and something that was created "non-intelligently" then we definitely should search for "non-intelligent" codes. If it is not possible to tell the difference then we're left with not knowing where intelligence has been used unless we can see it being used. I have no idea. That's why ID has failed to do anything so far. Until there's a way to tell the difference the answer will necessarily remain "I don't know". Hopefully there will be some evidence on the earth of where at least terrestrial DNA came from, but unfortunately I think that will be unlikely. I can't think of any evidence that an ID source would leave, and any naturalistic mechanism probably wouldn't leave evidence this long after the act either. Still, we'll never know unless we look. This is probably off topic, but science never "proves anything 100%", it's always tentative to new evidence. And theories never become facts, theories explain facts and predict new "facts". I haven't deleted it out of hand, but if it isn't possible to detect it then the answer will always be "I don't know". Depends what you're claiming "we don't know yet". I'll admit there are things we don't know, the existence of a creator that coded DNA being one of them. There are things we do know regarding evolution however, but that would certainly be way off topic here.Edited by happy_atheist, : Corrected some formatting and added missing words, nothing more significant than that.

just making a general reply to tc.You claim DNA is a code. You claim water is not a code. However, DNA is nothing more than a huge chain of molecules, made up of four nitrogenous bases, a phosphate, and a ribose (or deoxyribose, more specifically). The process of self-replication is nothing more than a huge chemical reaction, involving plenty of proteins.Water too is a chemical. So are phoshpo-lipids. So are amino acids, so are nucleic acids. These are all made using chemical reactions, following the chemical laws that we know of. So since DNA is a code (according to you), then so is water and all other chemicals and molecules, because they all are made with chemical reactions. But you argue that water isn't a code. Seems a little odd to me that you would pick and choose what chemicals and what molecules are code and which aren't.As several have pointed out, the process of self-replication is a chemical reaction, and DNA itself is nothing more that a chain of molecules. Which isn't code--since when do molecules have "intent"?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I'd like to address this particular quote; I'm not sure it has been pointed out:

quote:

---

If so far it appears that all codes come from a concious mind, than DNA, being a code, possibly came from a concious mind, until proven otherwise. This absolutly cuts it in science. How could it not? It is a presented problem. The facts so far point in direction A,and until you can prove that they actually point in direction B, than the logical assumption is that they point in direction A.

---

This sounds reasonable indeed (if we accept the 'code' concept as you define it). But I would argue that your statement 'so far it appears that ALL codes come from a conscious mind' is somewhat misleading. Even if the statement were true, We shouldn't forget, that 'all' of these 'examples' that you put against the 'one' example of DNA, can be reduced to no more than one conscious mind: the human brain.So while you give the impression that the score is 5236-1, it would be more fair to say that it is 1-1 ! Furthermore, why not reason as follows: all currently known codes (except DNA?) can be traced back to the human mind. But the human mind itself can ultimately be traced back to... DNA! Even possible codes developed by intelligent animals would in the end just be a product of DNA. As such, ALL known codes would be the product of DNA, and there is no conscious mind left to oppose it with.

Hey all, been away for a bit.I read through the replies and I hope you don't mind if I just make a general rebuttal.I still don't see how some can say DNA is like a code when people like Yockey say it is not like a code but it is a code.You ask why water isn't considered a code and DNA is. To me it seems very simple. Water carries no specific information, DNA does. DNA carries the specifics for the whole you. Every peice of you is a product of theinformationin DNA.Water has no information. It's comprised of H2O, thats it. It may contain other things, but it has no plan for what form it will take, or any other specific detail. It is just water.DNA expresses intent. You can map it, one day we will able to read the outcome of DNA. DNA is filled with info on color, hight, arm/leg length, etc.DNA is more than itself. It isn't just a double helix. Sure it's full of a, t, g, c, but they are arranged in such a way as to express intent. They "spell" specifics out, coded info that is used to build a body. You may say it is a casual process. It's no more casual than a code. The sequences stand for something, they mean something, and if the sequence gets messed up it becomes unreadable, undecodable. A code is a way of transmiting information. DNA does just that.Star light does not transmit coded info. It has patterns. Patterns are not codes. They contain no info. You can learn from patterns, but patterns contain no alphabet spelling out specific instructions.You can look into what temp. something has to be in order to give off a certain color of light, and then the next time you see light that color you can tell what temp. the object emmiting it may be. You have created info. about light, but if you didn't, who/what would the code be going to? What whould translate this code.Why is code not random?A code is created for one pupose and one alone. To communicate with another. Period. Why would water have codes? What is it specifically trying to communicate with? Light? Weather?DNA, unlike anything else in this world not programed by a concious mind (to date), is the only thing that contains information ment specifically for another thing that must decode that info. correctly to do its job. Both parties have an agreed upon language that they must use in order to correctly transmit/recieve this specific information that is intended to carry specific info. from one to the other.Water doesn't do this, nor does starlight. Nor does anything else that is not a product of DNA.If everything that contained a pattern was concidered a code, why do you think Yockey would waste his time saying that DNA is a code and not just like a code if everything is a code?Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.

It seems to me your reasoning is that1) A code is created by a concious mind
2) DNA is a code
therefore GodOthers disagree.For example, given your premise that 'A code is created by a concious mind', you have yet to show that DNA is a code by that definition.Or, if DNA is a code, you have yet to demosntrate that your premise is correct.It looks like you want to DEFINE God into existance. But, to do so, you have to use the logical fallacy of equivication.