Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

How is this substantively different from the ID claim that because DNA is information, and because all information has an intelligent source, therefore DNA must have had an intelligent source?Unless there is some substantive way in which this is different, the same answers apply. The most significant issue is the one Wounded King already touched on, that all information garnered from nature is encoded.--Percy

I don't see how any objections to viewing DNA as an encoding of information as having much support, so I don't think you need spend much time arguing for it.The primary objection is to when you say things like this: This is most certainly untrue. You're referring to A Mathematical Theory of Communication, written by Claude Shannon in 1948, not 1998. Click the link and look for the word "intelligent" or any of its other forms in the paper. It isn't there. The reason it isn't there is because Shannon never argued for an intelligent origin for information.It is your claim that information and codes must have intelligent sources that is the primary objection. As was explained in several messages, all of reality is encoded information, for example, star light and tree rings. This is the objection to which you want to respond.--Percy

The information contained in the tree rings is not an expression of information contained in DNA. The tree rings record information about the environment surrounding the tree during its period of growth.Craters on the moon are a record of information about the impacts. The most obvious information is which craters are newer than others, since the newer craters superimpose upon and obscure the older ones, like this: See the little craters on the outer ridge of the large crater in the foreground, and the ones inside the large crater? They must have formed after the large crater. That's information, and no design or intelligence was involved. Naturally there's much more information there, I'm just pointing out the most obvious.--Percy

In the case of the relative age of craters, the code is very simple. The ones on top are newer. It's a very simple code.--Percy

I already rebutted this back in Message 17: Moving on: 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: 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.--Percy

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.

Water carries plenty of specific information. What it doesn't carry is a human-defined code. But water, like everything else in nature, carries plenty of specific information that has to be teased out by unraveling the code. For example, water carries a lot of information about how hydrogen bonds work. If the water is from nature, then a content analysis provides information about where the water has been.The mistake you're making is thinking that the only codes are the kinds of codes humans tend to create, and DNA probably has more similarities to a human-defined code than anything else in nature. But a code doesn't have to be an artificial construct created by humans to be a code. The information from stars is encoded in the frequencies and polarizations of the light from those stars. When we analyze that light with spectrograms we aren't creating information but are merely translating the information from one encoding to another. The encoding in light waves is translated to an encoding that we can read without special instrumentation, such as a picture of the spectrum with the absorption lines that tell us what elements comprise the star, or a table of numbers in a computer database. Now you're comparing starlight to DNA, not a code. There's nothing about codes that requires them to contain instructions, only information. Of course starlight doesn't spell out specific instructions, but that's not a defining element of a code. You haven't created information about light. What you've done is translated the information encoded in the light into a different encoding of the information. This is the way people create codes. It has nothing to do with the way information is encoded in nature. Even just the rising and setting sun contains information, for example, for creatures on earth to know whether to rise or sleep. This is just plain wrong. Codes *are* patterns. If codes didn't contain patterns then they couldn't be decoded.--Percy

What is DNA communicating with? As Iblis correctly notes, if you want to insist that the only codes are those constructed for purposes of human communications, then DNA is not a code. All DNA does is react with other chemicals, similar to how the photons in starlight stimulate chemical reactions on our retinas, and how the spacing of the tree rings results from the chemical reactions of growth governed by the availability of resources.But I don't think Iblis's perspective is the only valid perspective. As long as a perspective is self-consistent then it can be valid, and your perspective is not consistent. If a code is something designed for purposes of human communications, then DNA is not a code. But if a code is a system for representing and storing information, then DNA is a code. And so are starlight and tree rings. You're talking about human designed codes again, but anyway, starlight and tree rings contain specific information. Saw a tree at it's base, count the tree rings, that's how old it is. The trees age is encoded in the tree rings. It's a very simple code. I think it would be more accurate to say that DNA shares some of the characteristics of human defined codes, but so do starlight and tree rings.Here's a simple example. Pretend you're a spy. You devise a code to tell a fellow spy what time you should meet the next day. Your code says that the 24-hour time will equal the number of peas you place in a matchbox that you leave on your front doorstep. Your fellow spy walks by your front door, scoops up the matchbox, counts the number of peas, and knows what time you'll meet the next day.How is that any different from counting tree rings to get the age of a tree? You're again confusing the general concept of codes with formal definitions of human-defined codes, and a code is not a created language anyway, they are an encoding of information. Purpose is a human concept and is not a necessary quality of a code. While codes are often created to hide information, even many human defined codes are not created for that purpose. It is not an essential characteristic of codes to hide information. All information crossing the Internet is encoded, but very little of it is encoded in any secure way. Codes can arise even without our knowing it. Someone observing your house might discover that you leave for work every morning at 7:30 AM, except on Tuesday's when you leave at 10:00 AM. He now has a simple code: Tuesday mean's you'll be leaving for work at 10:00 AM.Halley's comet is a code. Say you didn't know what year it was, but you knew that Halley's comet had last appeared in 1986. So you just wait until you see Halley's comet, then you'll that know 76 years have passed since its last appearance and that the year is 2062.--Percy

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

You've restated my point incorrectly, and so in the rest of your post you addressed a point I didn't make.I did not say DNA bears a strong resemblance to a code.I did not say DNA is not a code. You can argue all day long that DNA is a code to no effect, because I already agree that DNA is a code.What I said (and you actually quoted it and ignored it) was that DNA bears a strong resemblance *to codes designed by people*.You say you prefer the term "conscious mind" to "people", but people are the only examples of a conscious mind that we have, so you have no choice but to accept that they are synonymous. You have no way of knowing what types of codes might be designed by alien conscious minds. To make such a claim would be an illogical leap.But that's only a minor issue compared to your broader argument about intent. There are two fatal objections:

• Intent is not part of the definition of a code (see, for example, Code - Wikipedia).
  ​
• The intent you think you see in DNA is just you projecting human qualities onto it. DNA does not possess intent, which you already agree with, but any intent you think expressed is merely an interpretation or a perspective that you are projecting onto DNA. It isn't a quality of the DNA itself.
  ​
  People can and do project human qualities like intent and purpose onto anything they choose to. One creationist film I saw stated that the intent of the designer to provide food for mankind was clear in the banana, which is ideally suited to be held in the hand, has a curved shape to tilt toward the mouth, and has a handle for peeling conveniently positioned at the top.
  ​
  So you can "see" intent expressed in DNA if you like, but it's a purely subjective and completely unscientific observation.

Moving on: I said "simple denial". I was making note of the absence of any justification, rationale or argument. In most cases all you did was say, in effect, "Not a code." This is another example of simple denial. You simply declare that the "codes are still created by us" and "codes cannot arise naturally." Declarations and assertions aren't worth much if you can't support them with evidence and argument.Computer programs are normally written by people. But the little program organisms in these simulations are the product of allele remixing through sexual reproduction, mutation and natural selection. This is an example of computer programs that are not written by people. They arise through simulation of the natural processes of life that we've observed in nature. All you're doing is pointing out differences between tree rings and DNA. What you need to do is find differences between tree rings and a code. Unfortunately for you there aren't any, because tree rings are a code.Give poor Yockey a break and look at the Wikipedia definition of code. It defines a code as a rule for converting a piece of information into another form or representation. 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.--Percy

This is the same mistake tdcanam is making. Purpose is not a defining quality of a code. 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.I understand that you're approaching rebuttal of tdcanam from another angle. You view the "genetic code" as a compound noun whose definition is not merely the noun "code" modified by the adjective "genetic", and that it is a mistake to think DNA is a real code. And you don't believe codes can arise naturally.Sorry, can't follow you there. DNA is just too obviously a code that communicates information everywhere within the body and to the next generation. Check the Wikipedia definition of code. If wings are for flying, then shouldn't all birds fly? Penguins have wings, why don't they fly?In other words, rebuttal from this angle seems nonsensical.--Percy

Uh, yes. And more than that. Even an inexperienced cook can enter an unfamiliar kitchen and tell apart the 1 quart pots from the 2 quart pots at a glance. And the iron from the aluminum, the copper and the steel.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. Clearly if tdcanam's definition is correct then the universe is not full of codes, but then neither is DNA a code, as you have pointed out.Say I want to communicate colors, and so I devise a code where different radio signal frequencies correspond to different colors:

• red: 428,374 GHz
• green: 545,077 GHz
• blue: 666,205 GHz

If I want to communicate the color green, then I send a radio signal of frequency 545,077 GHz. Someone receiving a transmission on that frequency knows I'm sending a message that the color is green.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.In reality nature is more complicated than my simple code example, which is just a subset of the real world of continuous frequencies. Now I think you're confusing codes with language.--Percy

Hi tdcanam,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.By your own criteria, DNA is a not a code because there is no apparent conscious design or conscious intent.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.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.Your post contained a few logical fallacies and misunderstandings: 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. 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? 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. 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.In other words, intent is a subjective human quality that people often project onto the natural world. It is wholly unscientific. 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. 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. 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. That's beside the point. Tree rings are a product of tree growth governed by DNA combined with the environment over time. Tree rings are not an expression of any specific information contained within DNA. 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. 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?--Percy

Not intentionally. I said "designed by people" instead of "designed by a conscious mind", and I can say that because people are the only example of a conscious mind that we have. Well, codes are languages in the general sense, but let's not confuse the issue. Remember that you're using the definition of code from the field of communications, where the goal is efficiency and determinism. There are qualities possessed by many languages that are not shared by communication codes. For example, there are homonyms like "there", "their" and "they're" which any consciously designed spoken code would avoid (this is aural ambiguity), and many words have multiple definitions for another kind of ambiguity. These kinds of problems are usually avoided in designed codes. After all, what spy would tell another spy, "If I say 'there' then we meet on Tuesday, but if I say 'their' then we meet on Wednesday." And everyone else's recent posts explain what is wrong with "all this".--Percy

But that's not what you're doing. What you're doing is like saying if a human blocks a river's flow then it's a dam, but if a beaver blocks a river's flow, then it's not a dam. Look at my color/frequency list:

• red: 428,374 GHz
• green: 545,077 GHz
• blue: 666,205 GHz

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.The mistake you're making isn't drawing a distinction between whether it's part of nature or not. The mistake is to use the distinction of whether or not it's part of nature to draw conclusions about whether or not it's a code. "Not part of nature" is not one of the distinguishing qualities of a code. As I already said in reply to tdcanam, I agree with you, except that the context is codes used for communications. Read the Wikipedia definition of communication codes (Code - Wikipedia), then read the one for language (Language - Wikipedia). They definitely share many of the same concepts, but they also are definitely not synonyms. Besides, this discussion is already finding it difficult enough to make progress without adding an argument about whether codes and languages are the same thing or not.--Percy