Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

You are misrepresenting what I posted as the definition of code.And by the way, code are languages. Exactly languages. All about communication.My recent posts explain all this.

quote:

---

But the frequencies in that list are the actual frequencies for red, green and blue. For your position (and tdcanam's) to be right, it's a code if I create it and use it, but if a star broadcasts colors that correspond to the same color/frequency table then it isn't a code. 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.

---

I think your failing to see the point of a code. It's communication. A rock isn't a code, but I can spell my name in rocks, and voala, code.A code is any series of symbols with an agreed upon meaning assigned to each. The purpose of assigning these symbols meaning and encoding them is communication.It matters not if "a star broadcasts colors that correspond to the same color/frequency table (the list you posted), meaning has now been assigned them, :. they are now a way of encoding information.Edited by tdcanam, : HTML fix.

Ohhhh man. I just finished replying and then erased it all by accident. Crap. Here we go again. Might be a bit more streamlined this time. Lol.

quote:

---

You miss the point. We have no evidence of a conscious entity before DNA. The only conscious entity we know of exists after DNA. This is why DNA is different from every single consciously created code. It is just one fundamental difference between DNA and other codes, one that serves to weaken the conclusion.

---

We have no evidence of origins at all. How did the stuff the universe is made of come to be?

quote:

---

I know how DNA works. That is why I raised the second difference: it is self-replicating. Something that no human code is.

---

DNA is the medium. The mRNA records info stored in DNA and then takes it to the ribosomes. The ribosomes reads this info and presto, the code is compleate.A better way to put it. I (mRNA) go to a filing cabinet (DNA) and pull out a plan (code) for a model that our team (body) has been building and now requiers. Say it needs a bit of rebuilding in an area. I (mRNA) photo copy the file (code) taken from the filing cabinet (DNA) and take it to you (ribosome). You (ribosome) read (decode) the plan (code) and start building the model by physically replicating the intangible info (intent/idea) in the file (code). Your product is a tangilble model that the intangible info. (code) represented.You just replicated. But to do so, you had to have the info/code brought to you and you had to decode/read it. You then, understanding the instructions laid out in the info/code, built an exact replica of the info.This info stored in DNA isn't the actual outcome. A code for an arm isn't an arm. It represents an arm. You, the ribosome, had to read the code and build a model that the info represented.That is code. For DNA to "replicate" itself, code is needed. Code in the sense I am talking of.

quote:

---

You seem to be talking only about the development part of DNA, why are you ignoring its other highly important property? It replicates itself. That's its most important feature!

---

Important feature or no, code is still the reason the feature is realized.How is DNA to ribosome any different than say, me being a framer. I can't frame a house without the blueprint. My gopher goes and gets a blueprint from our files. I read the blueprint and make the house that is only represented and not realized in the blueprint. I turn intangible info. into the tangible reality that the info. represented.

quote:

---

One might make a case for it - but we are the ones that start the communication, and we are the ones that do something with the outcome. It was why I used the word principally - the code that built an antivirus program has a clear purpose, a purpose that is only wielded by conscious entites. DNA's purpose appears to be to build vehicles that can aid in self-replication.

---

I have made a case for it. We started the program, yes. If programs "pop up" with out us directly programing them, remember that they are still using our code, it's their world. They are byproducts of our original code. This only strengthens my case. If codes can create codes within our systems, what does this say of DNA. A program pops up in our program, it makes sense. It follows the pattern of our codes. It creates a program using the same steps we did. We were the original encoder of the program, we set the peramiters of the world and the codes that "poped up" are confined to these paramiters.DNA seems to be working the same way does it not? We produce codes. Our codes follow the same steps DNA does, but it would seem that DNA comes first. That puts us in the same situation that these programs "popping up" inside of our programs are in. DNA encoded by an original encoder, produces programs/code sequences with the capabiblity to produce their own programs/code sequences. The codes we produce are subject to the rules of that one original code, DNA. Why? Because DNA would seem to be the origin of life, :. all life capable of producing code will produce it in the same way.

quote:

---

So now DNA isn't a code? Fine, show me a human medium of communication that is self replicating. We'd have to look once again to computer programs. In this sense though, the medium isn't self-replicating only the information. The medium is the computer, which is not self-replicating.

---

Again, any person reading instructions on how to get materials and build a model is replicating just as ribosomes replicate the info sent from DNA. The replication in both cases is not replication of info, but the actual building of the thing that the info represents.This is still not a weak induction. No weaker than the rest of the attempts to explain origins and the start of life. The thing most don't see is that when men like Yockey say "DNA is not like a code, it is a code", they don't specify what kind of code because there is only one kind of code known to man. The code was coined and defined by us. All things that fit the description of our word code are literal, compleate codes. DNA is 100% code. Not a different kind of code, the only kind of code. Communication. To make this simpler, lets take your idea and say, the process is code. DNA-mRNA-Ribosome.The fact that even most people disagreements are more or less in sync is good. Most say the out come is 1:1. Consciously produced code to DNA code. But we have many codes consiously produced, and that leaves DNA all alone.Funny that the one thing that we all come from is the only thing that produces code and we don't see an originator for the code, but we, who produce the same codes we are produced from, produce codes following the same steps.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

quote:

---

I'll ask you the same question--who programmed the first programmer, ie God?

​

You state it doesn't matter if the aliens programmed DNA. Well, then it doesn't matter if God programmed DNA. Because, as you ask, who programmed, created, or whatever the first entities?

​

You dismiss the alien argument on this ground. Looks like you also need to dismiss God on the same ground. Oops.

---

No oops.First off, let's leave the "God" idea out of this.Take all religions in the world and they can be boiled down to squat. Man made programs with the intent of controlling man. Take all religions and throw them out. What now? Well, it would seem that all mankind has had a very strong tendancy to lean towards the idea of a supreme being(s). Run with that. Do we have some god gene in us? Why do most humans, past and many present still look to a maker? Don't know? Me niether.With religion out of the way, we can focus on the idea of a "Creator". As many attempts to explain origins, this one isn't provable, as of yet anyway. A creator can be said to have created all things, not just life. This would encompass the univers and all that it is made of. Who is to say that this Creator is physical? Why could it not be metaphysical?A begining would only be necassary for us in the physical realm. Why? It's obvious. Time and space. How can one have a begining without time? How can one have time without space/matter? Matter is essential. We plot poin "A" on a piece of matter, and we travel. We then plot point "B". The "phenomenon" that has occured from our traversing from point "A" to point "B" is called "time".A metaphysical being living outside of the physical reality would have no time. No matter, no time. Godel and Einstein both presented this idea that time is relevent and possibly not real at all. With no time, beginings are not necessary. With us in a world of matter, we are subject to time.Say this metaphysical "Creator" created a bubble suspended in whatever it exists (or doesn't) in. Within this bubble, all creation of matter takes place (big bang?). All of that creation contained in the bubble would be subject to time, but all things outside would be free of it.Of course this is just theory.

Once we all are on the same page, the main issue will arise. This is the issu that I have with macro evolution.

quote:

---

The difference of opinion comes down to different definitions of codes. The definition of code that you prefer to use includes design by a conscious mind, conscious intent, a sender and a receiver.

---

Read my post I put up about 3 posts up from this one. It was to Modulous. There is only one type of code. We coined the word and defined it. It means one thing. Look at that post. It answers your questions. The problem is, your idea of code is not a code, paired with, your idea of DNA coding is not the one I am refering to.DNA stores an actual language. mRNA photocopies a requested file from this language and takes it to the ribosomes. The ribosomes build in reality what is coded info representing reality stored in DNA.

quote:

---

I think the discussion is bogged down right now, and that the best way out is to find a definition of code that everyone can agree upon.

---

I laugh only because there is one single definition of code. One. Yockey and others stated that the DNA-mRNA-Ribosomes-Product process is achieved using codes. One stores the code, one carries it, one reads it and builds to its specs. This is communication. Code.

quote:

---

The significant point that you're missing is that you don't know the qualities of the broader classification of "conscious mind" because you have only one sample: human beings.

---

Luckly, it doesn't matter. Read the post I just wrote to Modulous. It explains in depth. The original code would dictate/contain the way all other codes are formed. Since DNA would be the original code, and matches the way we, products of the original DNA code, form codes, it is safe to assume the possibility that the original code, like the ones we make (contained within the boundries set by the original code), would requier a conscious mind.This is like computer programs that "pop up" in already existing programs created by us. We didn't make the program, but we made the origional, and it found a code sequence that it could use to create it's own program/code, using the same codes/sequences we did. Clearer in the Modulous post.

quote:

---

You only know the types of codes created by human beings. You have no examples of codes by aliens, so you don't know if they would resemble codes by human beings. In other words, at present the set of all known codes by "conscious minds" is identical with the set of all known codes by human beings. You have no knowledge of codes by alien minds, and can reach no conclusions about them. Clear now?

---

It's not clear to you. Mate, codes are created for a purpose. To communicate. It doesn't matter if aliens, gods, or man creates the code, it follows the same principle. Communication. What is communication? It is expressing something that is in you head to another person/whatever. How do you do this? You code. You speak, write, program, symbolize, but whatever you do, you do it in agreeance with the other so that you can both understand one another. All communication works on the same principle, getting your idea into anothers head. Code.

quote:

---

I keep pointing you at the Wikipedia definition. It defines a code as a rule for converting information from one form of representation to another. It doesn't say the rule must be a product of a conscious mind. Science has discovered the universe to be orderly, and its behavior reduces to a set of rules.

---

What is the point of converting information? It is to be able to readily be able to express it.

quote:

---

The lone electron of hydrogen is specifically programmed to combine with the outer electron shell of oxygen to form a specific compound known as water. That is intent.

---

No, that is not intent. No it is not progammed.Hydorgen can take other forms as well, according to whatever it bonds to. There is no code in it to specify what form it will take. The same goes for oxygen. Either one can be a cation or a anion depending on what side of the periodic table the element it comes into contact with is on. ie Oxygen meets Boron in comparison to Oxygen meets Fluorine.

quote:

---

In other words, intent is a subjective human quality that people often project onto the natural world. It is wholly unscientific.

---

No, intent is a conscious quality that so far has no place in the natural world. (Rocks, water, etc.)

quote:

---

The fabrication of proteins from DNA is just a series of chemical reactions. They're much more complicated than hydrogen combining with oxygen to form water, but they're still just chemical reactions. There's no intent.

---

Love is a chemical reation. Assembly that follows a coded design like DNA is no different than this next example. DNA works no different than this. I want to build a house. I have no blueprint. I call up my mRNA guy and tell him to bring me info/specs/bluprints on a certain model. He opens a filing cabinet (DNA) and pulls out the requiered info/specs/bluprints. He brings them to me. I decode them by reading them, and I can because I know the language that all the files in the filing cabinet are written in. I build a house to the exact specs as the blueprint dictates. The blueprint expressed the idea that I made a physical reality.The so called "chemical reactions" are no different than the reactions that took place for me to build the house.

quote:

---

Of course they're not arising naturally. They're arising by simulation of the natural processes of mutation and allele resorting during reproduction combined with natural selection.

---

Kind of like what I am proposing we are doing, being products of the origial code DNA, using what we have to create codes identical in structure to the ones we exist because of?

quote:

---

Bill (the ribosomes) carries out the instructions in the message. That those instructions reflect the intent of some conscious mind is just your subjective projection of anthropomorphic characteristics onto a chemical reaction.

---

Wether they express intent of a conscious mind or not is beside the fact. The point is, that specific code was intended to produce that specific product. That is intent.

quote:

---

What you should really be saying is that human codes serve a human purpose. A human purpose is not an inherent quality of a code.

---

Again, there are no such thing as "human codes". All codes are communication. If communication is occurring, codes are present. A code is a product of necessity. If it is not necessary to communicate, codes are not needed.

quote:

---

Sure tree rings communicate with us. You cut the tree and the tree rings tell you how old the tree is. If the tree rings didn't communicate with us, then how did we find out how old it was?

---

No they don't. Like the wether, you just observe them and gather data. No communication is taking place. Tree rings form because the tree goes dormant and is assaulted by its environment. When it grows again, the evidence is left as a ring. This is cause and effect, not communication. It's the same as if I sputter unitelligible sounds at you, you hear it, but that is just cause and effect. I cause virations, and your ears pick them up, but there is no code. I arrange that sound into words that we have assigned agreed upon meanings to and you understand, and bingo, we got code.Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.

I already explained your color/frequency list, but you didn't reply. The idea is flawed.

quote:

---

This particular issue isn't whether people are the only intelligence on the planet, but whether a sample set that consists of only the intelligent organisms from a single planet amidst all the planets of all the solar systems of all the galaxies of all the universe is sufficient to draw the conclusion that we know precisely what a code that is the product of an intelligence would look like.

---

Percy, why would we not know what they would look like? It's the same as when we make a comp. program that creates its own program inside of it. That new program was not directly coded by us, but since it is contained/subject to a world designed by us, (Our code is what was used to create it), it stands to reason that this new program would only have the capability of expressing itself the way original program did. (The one we made.):. we, being a product of the "original code", would produce codes after the fashion of the one we spawned from. If a computer program we didn't code, but spawned from one we did, codes the exact way the one we coded does, we can use it as a model for us. We code the same way we were coded, and we do this because we are a product of a code (DNA), that may have been encoded by an original encoder.Bear with me, the scotch is kicking in, lol. For clarities sake. We code a program. A program is coded within the program that we didn't code. It must use the same code as we did, because that is all it has to work with. It looks at it's DNA, our original code that it sprung from and wonders if it had a creator. It can't find out because it lives in the information world, while the original creators of its DNA (original program) live in the material world (us). How will a computer program ever find out who created it, when even the computer that houses it's information world is forein to it, beyond it, let alone the humans that created it. Now look at DNA in the same light.

quote:

---

An important concern, one already dismissed by tdcanam, is of evolution. Tdcanam evidently dismisses the possibility of evolution, as he has dismissed much else without justification.

---

That was low.I have stated more than once that I understand and have absolutly no issue other than 1 question with evolution. I think it is entirely possible and probable. I still have 1 quam, but I would cheer louder than most if it was proven fact.

quote:

---

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).

---

Ah, know you are asserting fact when you should be giving an opinion. We do not know that DNA wasn't designed.Look at it as a cycle. We are in the middle of the cycle. (This is a theory, I am not saying it's fact.) I have explained this alot today, once more won't hurt.We code a program into a computer. It creates its own program. The only way it can do this is to use the original code we plug into it. It in turn can produce codes, (otherwise it wouldn't be a program), but those codes have to consist of the exact format as the original. Why, because that is all it has to create with. It is confined to the program we created, that is all it has to use, that is all it knows, that is its world. We observe this new program and can understand it because it must code using only the things we provided it with. Those things are the codes its made of. Our program is its DNA.We, are products of our DNA. We code in the same manner as DNA-mRNA-Ribosome. Why, could it be because we are restricted to a single way to express intent, the same way a program created by a program is restricted to using only the original code we gave it?We are in the middle of this theoretical cycle because theoretically we are the product of the original code DNA that was programed by a designer. We are the program within the program. We create code in the same manner we were brought about. DNA. We are in the middle of,1) Who programed DNA
2) We are the product of that programing in DNA
3) We program the same way we were programed, using codes in the same way Codes produced us.Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.

Read all of the posts I composed today. You will see why my reasoning is not circular.No DNA is not conscious. Yes codes come from conscious minds. DNA was not the encoder. It holds the code.But, codes denote communication. Period. DNA holds files/specs. Those are photcopied by mRNA and taken to the ribosomes. The photcopies are decoded/read by ribosomes and the ribosomes build the physical reality that the info. stored in DNA represented. The code in DNA that represents an arm is not an arm, it is instructions on how to build an arm. When the specs for an arm are requested, mRNA specifically records specific info on a specific member (the arm) and takes it directly to the ribosome who inturn decodes the info and builds the arm that the code in the DNA specifically represented. Intent. The code was intentionally called for, mRNA intentionally got it and intentionally took it to the ribosome and the ribosome decoded and built the arm that the code specifically instructed.

Rocks do not contain codes. Ask anyone here. Invictus, wanna clarify?Codes are specifically for communication and rocks don't communicate.Communication is a product of necessity. Where communication is necessary, codes will abound, where it is not, there will be no codes.Who do rocks need to communicate with?People have to communicate, DNA's info has to be read by ribosomes, and the signal sent to request a certain code from DNA has to be decoded in order for mRNA to bring the right code to the ribosomes, computers must communicate to pass info from my screen to yours, etc.Rocks need to communicate with ??? because ???, see the problem. No communication is present in rocks. You can gather info from them by observing them, much like you can by the weather, but niether are codes.Can I shout for a sec? THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF CODE, THAT WHICH IS USED TO COMMUNICATE.Sorry. Lol. If it doesn't Need to communicate or is not a form of communication, it won't be encoded.

Modulous, I think I like you mate, lol.

quote:

---

There maybe only one type of code, and DNA maybe 100% but the definition of code does not include 'has to be initiated by a conscious entity'

---

True, much like programs that "spontaneously pop up" inside of other programs. They were created by our code, but not by us. (That is my proposition via DNA codes.) I need a better word than "DNA". Lets say instead, the process of taking info from DNA and turning that info into reality. It's long, I know, but I have a bit of a buzz and soccer on the brain, lol. (If you have a better term, please hook me up.)"The process of taking info from DNA and turning that info into reality" involves code. I see your point of DNA replicating (2nd step), but it would all fall apart without the coding. Assuming an encoder, what would DNA be able to do if it contained no encoded info?Again, thanks for the good conversation mate, post you tonight, I gotta sleep.

Of course the program could carry out functions seperate from the origional, but it would do so within it's origin programs restraints. For example, we can't fly, but even in the confines of physics, we can build a plane and it can fly us.

quote:

---

I'm afraid I couldn't follow the rest. Perhaps if I had some scotch...

---

Ah scotch, if only I had found it earlier in life, I wouldn't have questioned certain things and just lived in bliss. Glenfiddich anyone? Goodnight. Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.

Yes, I am waiting for evolution to become fact. I can wait a very long time. I see no reason to expect proof of a theory if we strive in that direction.Maybe the word theory is not the one I should be using. Many in the past have gone against the grain. Everyone said the earth was flat, one guy had a theory that the earth was not flat. Steps were taken and it was proven that the idea of a flat earth was in error. The earth was infact a sphere.Evolution proposes itself as a theory, but one day it will be proven, one way or another.