Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 220 (324171)
06-21-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


DNA is a code, by all definitions of the word. Authorities agree. If you need quotes, let me know and I will be happy to post them, all of them. (There are many.)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by tdcanam, posted 06-21-2006 8:36 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 220 (324481)
06-21-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by tdcanam
06-21-2006 8:36 AM


Re: Invictus
First off, it's not supposed to.
Not supposed to what?
Second, ID is off the mainstream beaten path a bit and would not enter a dictionary as of yet.
Should have thought about THIS before you said that:
quote:
Dictionary.com
Main Entry: intelligent design
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
Example: Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity
Third, the genetic code is a code and would then revert to your first definition :. would requier consciousness.
Actually, the genetic code is a compound noun with its own special definition slightly independant of its parts:
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.
Just like an ironing board isn't a board in the normal sense. It becomes something different when made into a compound noun.
All of the examples in the first definition you posted stem from a mind.
Who cares? We aren't dealing with those definitions; we're dealing with the one that relates to genetics. The rest are useless to us.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by tdcanam, posted 06-21-2006 8:36 AM tdcanam has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 06-21-2006 4:47 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 220 (324498)
06-21-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
06-21-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Percy
Trees convert the information that a year has passed into a ring. We then decode this information by cutting the tree and counting the rings. It's as simple as that.
It's not actually that simple. The tree doesn't put the ring there for the purpose of determining its age. The ring is a result of the tree going dormant in the winter months. We assume that one winter happens each year (a perfectly fine assumption) and from that we reason that the tree has been alive for the same number of years as its rings count.
It's like determining that it is going to rain because the clouds are grey. The clouds haven't set up some complex weather code that we are deciphering, no. We are just making an observation based on what we know about the weather, and then making a prediction. Just like with counting the rings on a tree.
Now, what about the trees that don't have rings? If these rings were a code, don't you think all the trees would have them? Tropical trees don't show rings, because there isn't ever a dormant season.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-21-2006 12:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 06-21-2006 5:06 PM Jon has replied
 Message 114 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 8:51 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 220 (324658)
06-21-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Percy
06-21-2006 5:06 PM


Re: Percy
Invictus writes:
It's not actually that simple. The tree doesn't put the ring there for the purpose of determining its age.
This is the same mistake tdcanam is making. Purpose is not a defining quality of a code.
The clouds haven't set up some complex weather code that we are deciphering, no.
This is another one of the mistakes tdcanam is making. Codes do not have to be "set up", i.e., designed by someone or something.
By that, ANYTHING could be considered a code. The shape of a cooking pot could be considered an encoded message which hints to us its use.
The colour of the sky is also a code, because it helps us understand the chemical makeup of the atmosphere.
Is everything in science a code then? Because if we are to exclude the need for an intelligence when talking about a code, then it would seem to me that every bit of information is encoded when we compare it to other ways that information could have been conveyed to us. I mean, the tree could've just hopped up and told us how old it was, would that make it not a code just because it conveyed the information in English? What if it spoke in Spanish?
What if we aren't there? Is there still information? Is it still in a code? What about to the "tree people" who speak "ring-lish"? Would tree rings be a code to them? Are codes subjective?
If codes don't have to be intelligently made, then everything could be viewed as a code.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 06-21-2006 5:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 9:35 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 220 (324936)
06-22-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
06-22-2006 9:35 AM


Re: Percy
But it is generally a good idea to shy away from anthropomorphisms where if humans do it it's one thing, but if nature does it it's another, but there are no other distinguishing features.
There's nothing wrong with that. If a beaver builds a damn, its part of nature; if a human does it, it's not par of nature.
Only if you want to accept tdcanam's definition that codes are designed by people with some purpose in mind is the universe not full of encoded information just waiting for us to decipher the codes.
But a code really needs to be compared to something. For example, if I replace every fifth letter of my message with the next letter of the alphabet (here js an eyamplf), we can say it is encoded. To decode it, we'd put it into English (or any other language) and read it as "here is an example."
Now that was an encoded language: language was the starting point, and language was the ending point. In reality it was an encoded version of something that is already a code. But, we have decided that we will not treat it as a code (the base language) for reasons of translation.
If everything is a code, then when we "understand" something, all we are doing is translating it from one code to another. But this doesn't get us very far, because there can never be a "right" answer: we could always code it in some other way. We need something as a "base code". We generally use our language. Then we take all of these "natural codes (which aren't real codes)" and translate them into that language.
Now I think you're confusing codes with language.
Confusing language and code would be like confusing an apple and an apple: they are the SAME! Languages are encoded forms of our ideas, thoughts, emotions, etc.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 9:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 4:18 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 220 (324937)
06-22-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
06-22-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Percy
and I can say that because people are the only example of a conscious mind that we have.
I highly doubt it. I think that's becoming a little on the side of "people are great!" I would have to believe that many animals (especially other high primates) have concious mind as well.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 4:43 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 220 (324939)
06-22-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Codegate
06-22-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Iblis
I would say it is. You designed it, and we could perhaps extend it farther to replacing each letter of the alphabet with a number.
But if it happens in nature though, it's really not a code. Nature is not starting with a general base code (language, e.g., English) and then translating information from it into a code, and then us translating it out of that code.
Something needs three parts for a code really.
Start->Middle->End (same as start)
If we start at Middle, then we can't really say it was encoded. And if it wasn't encoded, what's there to decode? And if there's nothing for us to decode, and there was nothing encoded, then is there really a "code"?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Codegate, posted 06-22-2006 2:10 PM Codegate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Codegate, posted 06-22-2006 5:15 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 220 (325100)
06-22-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Codegate
06-22-2006 5:15 PM


Re: Iblis
I'm trying to stick with the definition that tccanam has put forth for a code which has the premise that DNA is in fact a code.
Tdcanam also put forth the premise that all codes known have been intelligently deisigned.
Only one can really be true, because we know that DNA wasn't designed (though tdcanam is saying BOTH are true and using it as evidence of a Designer).
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Codegate, posted 06-22-2006 5:15 PM Codegate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 11:00 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 220 (325142)
06-23-2006 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
06-22-2006 4:43 PM


Re: Percy
Both I and Modulous have conceded that DNA possesses some of the qualities of a code produced by people...
I agree, DNA does possess such qualities, but that does not make it a code.
A bowl possesses some qualities of a frying pan, but it is not a frying pan.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 4:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 6:18 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 220 (325143)
06-23-2006 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Percy
06-22-2006 4:18 PM


Re: Percy
What you're doing is saying that if I transmit color information using these frequencies then it's a code, but if a star transmits color information using these frequencies then it's not a code.
That's 100% what I am saying. The thing is, the star is not encoding anything. It is producing both the colour and the radio frequency. When you make the code, you don't make the colour (at least you don't have to); and when I recieve the code, I don't have to make the colour.
The start makes both. We can't necessarily see the colour, but we can use the frequency to show what colour it is.
"Not part of nature" is not one of the distinguishing qualities of a code.
But the encoding/decoding process is! And this is something that can only be accomplished by a "concious mind" (human or animal). You seem to say that the "code" is just the information it contains in a certain format. However, that doesn't help us distinguish a code from a non code, and we can't just say everything is a code, can we? No. The code needs something special, and that's where the encoding/decoding part comes in. A code really can't be a code unless it's been encoded as such. And only concious minds can encode (as far as I've ever been aware).
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 4:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 6:36 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 220 (325386)
06-23-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
06-23-2006 6:36 AM


Re: Percy
The reality is that a code is a code, and codes can be created by people, they can be created by nature, or they can exist just from the properties of our universe.
A code can't be created by nature. We need three things for a code.
Start-> Middle-> End (same as start)
The Start for any code is the information that you want to encode in it. In the case of DNA, there IS information, and it's true that we cannot "read" that information as it is. However, we know that information was not first; the DNA was first. A regular code would see the following steps:
Information -> Encoded form -> Information
But in DNA we do not see that (if we did, it would certainly be good evidence of a Designer). In DNA we have:
"Encoded" form -> Information
Is English a code to you? It really is, but you wouldn't think of it as one because you understand it. If we were really able to "read" DNA 100%, we would understand it, and it would not appear as a code to us. There is an appearance of a code, but there is not an actual code because there was never anything encoded. It is our lack of understanding that leads to us viewing DNA sequences as codes.
A code needs a creator, it cannot arise on its own. If it does, then it's just information, and just because we cannot read the information in its natural form doesn't make it a code.
To return to the dam analogy, this is like saying a dam created by people is a dam, while a dam created by nature (such as at Spirit Lake at Mount St. Helens) is not a dam. Or it's like saying a car made by people is a car, but if a genie creates a car "poof" from nothing, it isn't a car.
Structures (dams, cars, etc.) are defined by their structure. If that structure exists, then we can call it as it is. The structure does not require that it be built from something else. A code, on the other hand, requires the initial encoding process (a process clearly not seen in DNA--at least not the first strand).
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 6:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 3:04 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 220 (325387)
06-23-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
06-23-2006 6:18 AM


Re: Percy
But DNA possesses all the necessary qualities for a code, representing information in a structured and orderly systematized fashion.
But that is not true. It is not infromation being represented in that orderly fashion. Sure, it looks orderly when we know what information we want, but if we looked for different information, we might find it scattered all over the place.
Information is not being represented by the DNA sequence (for that to happen, we would need to START with information), instead, the sequence is defining the information. The sequence (or "encoded" form) starts first, and the information is created second. There is no encoding process, and without an encoding process, there can really be no code. My post above explains this a little better.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 6:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 06-23-2006 3:04 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 3:20 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 220 (325525)
06-24-2006 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
06-23-2006 3:04 PM


Re: Percy
Communication
quote:
Communication is the process of sending information to oneself or another entity...
Is the DNA sending information? I would say it isn't. I would say that information is just a result of its existance.
Jon
Edited by Invictus, : fixed code

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 3:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 06-24-2006 9:07 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 220 (325542)
06-24-2006 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by tdcanam
06-23-2006 11:30 AM


Re: Percy
Rocks do not contain codes. Ask anyone here. Invictus, wanna clarify?
No, rocks don't. But that's about as far as I'm agreeing with you. Information doesn't have to mean anything.
THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF CODE, THAT WHICH IS USED TO COMMUNICATE.
Okay... I'll give you that one too.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 11:30 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 220 (325552)
06-24-2006 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
06-23-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Percy
Message 124
However, by a more widely accepted definition of code, for example, that found at Code - Wikipedia, DNA is a code. So are tree rings and starlight.
DNA is *not* a code, not in the formal sense anyway.
So now... which one will it be?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 06-23-2006 3:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 06-24-2006 10:06 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024