Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

In just those words? No, of course you never said that. But one of your requirements for a code is that it have intent, and another of your requirements is that it be used for communication of information. This pretty much eliminates any code not created by people, right?But you make an exception for DNA, declaring it to have intent, namely communication of the genetic code from one generation to the next, and as a blueprint for the organism.The reason you declare it to have intent is because it bears a strong resemblence to codes designed by people. For instance, you liken it to computer code.But mere resemblence is insufficient to assign origin. The question you must ask is whether such codes can arise naturally, and the answer is yes. Even computer programs can arise naturally, as is demonstrated every day by computer programs available on the net that evolve computer code organisms that compete in a simulated environment.So not only are the criteria you define for deciding design carefully chosen and artificial, but the object you claim was designed can be produced by entirely natural mechanisms.Much of your post is just simple denial that any of my examples of codes are real codes. Most incredible was this one: And DNA does?Codes don't care. Codes don't have intent. Caring and intent are properties of people. It is a mistake to project these qualities onto codes and DNA.--Percy

But why would you start with 1) ?Thus far, if we accept that DNA is your kind of "code", we have identified only two sources for these codes thus far: DNA and the human mind. First of all, this means two datapoints on the "codes vs. sources" graph and they are perfectly split. So nothing in there strongly suggests that intent, conscious mind and intelligence are somehow prerequisites. One could just as well say that the evidence points to the possibility of spontaneous generation of such a code, and that the human mind simply "emulates" it.Secondly, source 2, the human mind, is itself the product of source 1, DNA. Which points to the "emulation" conclusion.Now, it looks like this means that unless you could come up with several examples of codes or coders/encoders (cfr. the human mind) who are completely independant of DNA or anything similar to DNA, there seems to be no reason to a priori consider DNA unlikely or unusual to resemble a code?I could follow you if we for example had 20 examples of dieties who created codes "ex nihilo", or intelligent robots that could not be reduced to something similar to DNA. Both are very hard to imagine, clearly...In that respect, it would of course be extremely interesting to find other sources of life in the nearby universe. What would it mean to your idea, for example, if we found lifeforms on another planet which were based on something similar to DNA? And what would it mean if it were exactly like DNA?

Actually, "ETdidit" is LESS silly than "Goddidit". The idea of "beings from another planet" is not only rather likely; from the viewpoint of another planet, say Mars, it is a certainty, even. After all, aren't we "extramartials"?

​

Since Mars and Earth are not particularly special in the grand scheme of things, it is highly likely that there must be life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, I think the universe must be teeming with life. It may not all be intelligent life, and perhaps intelligence is rather sparse in the universe (as it is on Earth and, dare I say, among humanity), but given the immensity of the universe I'll wager a case of Mouton Rothchild that they're out there, those little green men.Climbing down from my off-topic soapbox now, and slightly raising my voice, it might be prudent to say something about codes.I think DNA is indeed a code, but I don't think codes necessarily originate from a conscious mind, DNA being a case in point. But I'm not going to argue that, because others have done a fine job at that already.The point I want to address is this: if there is intent behind the code of DNA, if it is a message, then isn't the message hopelessly corrupt by now? Was DNA originally a page of clear prose, now, with three and a half billion years worth of mutations, it can be no more than a crumpled scrap of paper with some smudges on it. It may still be useful as a code, but it certainly isn't the original message anymore.If anyone wants to maintain that there is conscious intent behind the message of DNA, in its present state, then it might help them if they come forward with present conscious intenders.Edited by Parasomnium, : Spelling

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

All that is true, but I still think it is too silly to state that an ET might have designed human DNA. A god would at least have some supernatural powers to do it with.Edited by fallacycop, : fixing quote box

With modern DNA sequencers, who needs supernatural powers? (Let's whisper when we're off-topic...)

quote:

---

Dictionary.com

​

code
n.

​

1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.
2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.
3.
1. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.
2. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity.
4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program.
5. Genetics. The genetic code.
6. Slang. A patient whose heart has stopped beating, as in cardiac arrest.

---

quote:

---

Dictionary.com

​

genetic code
n.

​

The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins. It is the biochemical basis of heredity and nearly universal in all organisms.

---

If when talking about DNA (genetics), the word "code" is used, it is refering to the "genetic code" (as by definition one).Looking at definition two (genetic code), we see that there is NO reference to an apparent intelligence behind its design.Jon

quote:

---

My points assume that DNA is a code, but then point out the weakness still inherant in your logic viz the fundamental difference between the two types of codes (ones we know have conscious origins and ones which we don't).

---

There is only one type of code that we can question wether or not it has conscious origins, DNA.The point here is not that DNA is proof of a god, it is just evidence of the possiblity of ID.

Correct. Do you agree that DNA has properties that no other code we know of has? (eg: it has existed longer than any known conscious entity, it self replicates etc etc (see the posts referenced for more detail on these differences)It is this fundamental difference that makes the inductive leap too far to have any strength. Who is talking about any gods? Not I! I am talking about inductive logic, and the strength of the conclusions based on it. If you don't know what I mean, I'm happy to explain it further.

quote:

---

... one of your requirements for a code is that it have intent, and ... that it be used for communication of information. This pretty much eliminates any code not created by people, right?

---

Not people, conscious minds. And yes, you are right. What is wrong with that? Codes don't spring up from rocks and water. We can use rocks and water to make codes, but they are not codes. I can't help that. I am coding information in the english lang. now, and my computer is using code to put my code on my screen and the net. The net is using code to send my message here to you, and to check for errors. You are reading my code now. It expresses intent (however unclear), and I am sending it for a reason, a purpose, to a certain group of people who can decode it. This is how code works. This is not how rocks or light works.

quote:

---

But you make an exception for DNA, declaring it to have intent, namely communication of the genetic code from one generation to the next, and as a blueprint for the organism.

---

What's wrong with that? DNA transmits specific info stored in it and ribsomes pick it up, translate and copy the info. That is intent. Not conscious, but a computer program is not conscious and does the same thing. Lifeless bits communicate using agreed upon code. But, the info. had to be placed there first.

quote:

---

The reason you declare it to have intent is because it bears a strong resemblence to codes designed by people. For instance, you liken it to computer code. But mere resemblence is insufficient to assign origin.

---

I don't mean to say that all by itself it proves ID. It is just a case for the possibility.Again, DNA does not have a strong resemblence to a code. It is a code.“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)The proper formal terminology for the statement “DNA is a code” is “The pattern of base pairs in DNA are a code.” There is a very clear difference between the message and the medium. The molecule itself is the medium; the ordering of the base pairs defines the code. The question that naturalism can't answer is where the code came from. This is what we are interested in.A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, etc. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.

quote:

---

The question you must ask is whether such codes can arise naturally, and the answer is yes. Even computer programs can arise naturally, as is demonstrated every day by computer programs available on the net that evolve computer code organisms that compete in a simulated environment.

---

This is not an example of spontaneous/natural code. It took consciousness to make a computer and input the info. nec. for this to happen. All of those codes are still created by us. No, so far codes cannot aride naturally.

quote:

---

So not only are the criteria you define for deciding design carefully chosen and artificial, but the object you claim was designed can be produced by entirely natural mechanisms.

---

You may say it is carefully chosen and artificial, because the word was created by us, and we were very specific as to what qualified a code.Can it? How?

quote:

---

Much of your post is just simple denial that any of my examples of codes are real codes.

---

LOL. Is it wrong to deny error? You examples are not codes/coded information, which is a really good reason for me to deny them.

quote:

---

Most incredible was this one: The tree couldn't give a rats ass if you read it or not.

​

And DNA does?

---

You can't see my point there?DNA doesn't need you to read it to communicate with something. If you ignore it, it still communicates with ribsomes. Tree rings, are just tree rings. They perform no function. You can get the age of the tree from its rings, but if you don't, who is getting it? No one. Same with a rock, if you don't read it, nothing will. Why? It is not transmitting anything.

quote:

---

Codes don't care. Codes don't have intent. Caring and intent are properties of people. It is a mistake to project these qualities onto codes and DNA.

---

No, it is not.Codes don't have intent, the express intent. Different. Dna doesn't have intent, it expresses it. The intent came from somewhere else.

No, it is not evidence of possible I.D. It doesn't rule I.D. out either, but it is just a semantics game you are playing.We have enough envidence to know that variation, followed by the selectitive pressures can create 'complexity'. That is different than an intelligent design.

Well that does it eh? We all know that trees are intelligent designers. Or are we moving the goalposts again. If everything is a product of the way the universe is designed - the ultimate position you will back into when pressed in this line - then yes you cannot rule out the possibility, but in the process you have conceded every scientific theory and natural process along the way.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.

quote:

---

Thus far, if we accept that DNA is your kind of "code", we have identified only two sources for these codes thus far: DNA and the human mind.

---

My kind of code?There is only one type of code, a code. It follows 4 levels, from the lowest level to the highest; statistics/alphabet, syntax/grammar, semantics/meaning, pragmatics/intent.The human mind isn't a code. It produces code. DNA builds a human by transmitting the info. stored in it (using code), and building a human, which has a mind that in turn produces code.

quote:

---

First of all, this means two datapoints on the "codes vs. sources" graph and they are perfectly split. So nothing in there strongly suggests that intent, conscious mind and intelligence are somehow prerequisites.

---

Again, not two datapoints.The fact that the only codes we know of are produced by a conscious mind that is a product of DNA does strongly suggest that DNA came from a conscious mind. Suggest being the key word.

quote:

---

Now, it looks like this means that unless you could come up with several examples of codes or coders/encoders (cfr. the human mind) who are completely independant of DNA or anything similar to DNA, there seems to be no reason to a priori consider DNA unlikely or unusual to resemble a code?

---

Again, so far, no example of anything not a product of DNA can produce codes. This proves nothing, but as of now, it lends support to ID's possibility.

quote:

---

... it would of course be extremely interesting to find other sources of life in the nearby universe. What would it mean to your idea, for example, if we found lifeforms on another planet which were based on something similar to DNA? And what would it mean if it were exactly like DNA?

---

It would be very cool, and it would change nothing. It would still be useful in supporting ID. All it would do is push the problem further back in time. I have no problem with the possibility of life elsewhere, exept for the "fine tuning" thing.

quote:

---

The point I want to address is this: if there is intent behind the code of DNA, if it is a message, then isn't the message hopelessly corrupt by now? Was DNA originally a page of clear prose, now, with three and a half billion years worth of mutations, it can be no more than a crumpled scrap of paper with some smudges on it. It may still be useful as a code, but it certainly isn't the original message anymore.

---

That is, of course, assuming evolution is fact. And of course, there is the matter of redundancy. English is 50% redundant, German 30% and so on.

First off, it's not supposed to.Second, ID is off the mainstream beaten path a bit and would not enter a dictionary as of yet.Third, the genetic code is a code and would then revert to your first definition :. would requier consciousness.All of the examples in the first definition you posted stem from a mind.

Language is not an example of complexity. It is quite simple. The letter "a" represents a certain sound, when joined with other symbols like "pple", represents an object. I contructed a picture of and apple in your mind using a bunch of symbols with an agreed upon meaning to express my intent. Very simple. We also happened to create this system of communication.