Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Actually, its inductive reasoning and it is based on what appears to be an arbitrary premise. I could easily say that all known codes are most commonly translated by the same kind of entity that originated it. At this point we can no longer say if DNA is the product of a conscious mind or not since we do not know what entity originated it.DNA has unique properties: it has been around longer than any known conscious being and it is self-replicating. This means it is significantly different from any other kind of code. Significant enough to question the strength of the conclusion (ie very very very very weak).The conclusion would be stronger if we discovered an ancient language written in stone. It doesn't self replicate and appears to be only 5,000 years old. Now we can say with a high degree of certainty that the induction is valid.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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.

I'm pretty sure I've read all the posts and I don't see any reply to the points raised in Message 24 and Message 53. So far all your posts seem to be arguing about whether or not DNA is a code. 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 no compulsion on you to answer the issue, but I think it is important to the matter at hand.

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.

I have been attempting to engage you in discussion on this basis for some time now. Assuming DNA is a code, is your inductive reasoning solid? I say no, because there is a suitably large difference between the pool of known codes and the unknown code. They do not share the same properties, so the induction fails.

For information: I have gone over it in Message 83, Message 75, Message 53 and Message 24.An inductive leap follows a structure like the following:5,000 crows that I have seen are black.
Therefore all crows are black.It takes a general trend of an entity (crows) to have a certain property (blackness) and concludes that all of that entity have that property, even though we haven't seen all of those entities.So, you say
All codes that we know the origins of have conscious origins.
Therefore all codes have conscious origins (ie DNA included).I put it to you that DNA is significantly different from all known codes. All known codes, except DNA, are recent. Indeed they are only as old as the pool of all known conscious beings. No code we know of precedes the conscious beings we have so far categorized.Also, DNA is self-replicating which no other code we have ever encountered is. This renders it fundamentally different to all codes.And another idea is that DNA is principally translated by unconscious agents, which no other code is.It is my opinion that whilst DNA might share some properties with human codes, they do not share them all, and indeed DNA has unique properties. These differences are significant, so significant that your inductive leap is unwarranted. Your conclusion is highly suspect. If you had a pool of ancient self-replicating unconsciously translated codes...and we knew that they were all created by conscious minds....then you might have a point.To repeat my earlier post:

quote:

---

Your conclusion is not based on deductive reasoning. Your conclusion is based on inductive reasoning. Because the entities you are making your induction off (human codes) are significantly different from the entity you are trying to reach a conclusion about (DNA code), the conclusion has an appropriate level of weakness. Due to the magnitude of difference between the two things I conclude that your conclusion has a high magnitude of weakness.

---

As an easy way of looking at imagine the following inductive leap:5,000 crows that I have seen are black
Therefore all birds are blackYou would agree that this was weak induction. The conclusion is not very strong.Is that expansion enough for you?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I know, that is why I concluded that you were not using deductive reasoning and that you were instead using inductive reasoning. See Message 24 where that happens. 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. I know how DNA works. That is why I raised the second difference: it is self-replicating. Something that no human code is. What on earth are you talking about? You don't think DNA self-replicates? 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! Yes, it does that. But that is not all it does, it also self-replicates. And Greek does not self-replicate, it requires a conscious mind to replicate. This is a fundamental difference between the two - its the most important and it puts your induction on very shaky ground. 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.This is not the big one, it is only a minor point. The self-replication is the big one. I suggest again that we focus on that one since it is most fundamental. In a way, it is the root of the other objections. 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.If we find a 5,000 year old stone tablet with writing on it, we observe that the tablet is not self-replicating. The language on it probably came from a conscious agent, much like our other stone tablets.If we find a computer code, we observe that the 18 month old computer is not self-replicating. Probably a conscious agent built it.We find a genetic code, we observe that the six month old DNA molecule is self replicating. We also observe that genetic code is an integral part of the medium itself. It was built by a similar copy of itself, which was built by a similar copy of itself. It looks like this has been going on for longer than all known conscious entites have existed. We can no longer have any confidence in the idea that a conscious agent built the first DNA molecule with the code embedded into it. It is not comparable to what you are saying though. You are saying:

quote:

---

All the crows that we have know the colour of are black, but there is one bird which is fundamentally different to crows in several regards.
Therefore, the one bird is black.

---

The conclusion is observable, measurable and testable? The crows scenario is, and that is why the true crow induction has strength. The DNA induction isn't. The Crows are black, therefore this bird that isn't the same as a crow is also black is not a strong induction.The codes we know are consciously created I shall call knowcodes.
The codes we don't we'll call DNA. I give them different names because they have different properties, though they share some. They are both under the umbrella of 'code'.knowcodes are created conscious entities.
DNA is thus created by a conscious entity.That's your induction and it is weak because knowcodes are not identical to DNA.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That's a total nightmare! Indeed - and here you go proposing the possibility of a conscious entity billions of years before the earliest evidence of conscious entities! Yes, but DNA has two roles, you can't ignore one. It builds a vehicle, as part of its self-replication process. DNA replicates therefore it is. If DNA didn't self-replicate...none of this would be being talked about now. The codes you are comparing DNA to do not exist as an integral part of a self replicating molecule. The codes that humans use are significantly different than DNA in this regard. Also - all human codes have existed within the same period as all conscious entites we know have existed. Not so for DNA.That is why the induction is weak - the two things share some properties, but differ in other important areas. 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'. We are trying to establish if the induction is strong enough to come to this conclusion. At this time, all the codes we know the origins of have been human or animal inventions (DNA isn't), they have not been transmitted via a self-replicating molecule/medium (DNA is), and it doesn't date to a time before any known conscious life (DNA does). Thus we cannot make the inductive leap 'there is good reason to think that DNA was started by a conscious entity'. Since it is not comparable directly to other known codes.If you can find me any code known to man which is not DNA yet which is directly comparable to the DNA code in its age and properties, and show me that it was created by a conscious mind, I will happily concede that your induction has more strength than I had previously stated.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It wouldn't self-replicate without the information contained within it. The primary information is 'copy me'. Any information that gets added to that either increases the replicative success of the DNA, decreases it or nothing. The information that increases the success gets to replicate more (by definition).When it boils down to it, one could simply ask 'how can a self-replicating agent naturally start and how can that agent store more information?'. We have no reason to assume that that some conscious entity kicked off the first basic replicator (whether it was DNA or some other nucleic acid, or perhaps something else entirely) - since there is no evidence of a conscious entity that existed at that time. Take care - I may not be around till tomorrow, so fare well till then!