Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 16 of 220 (322169)
06-16-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by happy_atheist
06-15-2006 7:31 PM


happy athiest
2. "Coded information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
quote:
The reason I think this is a failing is because it shows that ID actually makes no predictions. Your sole way of identifying something as ID seems to be "I can't explain it any other way, so it must be ID". This logic just doesn't cut it in science.
I beg to differ. Science has made many a mistake by pronouncing a theory a law and then finding out years later that it is in error.
This is a cut and dry case of deductive resoning. If so far it appears that all codes come from a concious mind, than DNA, being a code, possibly came from a concious mind, until proven otherwise. This absolutly cuts it in science. How could it not? It is a presented problem. The facts so far point in direction A, and until you can prove that they actually point in direction B, than the logical assumption is that they point in direction A.
quote:
It isn't good enough to say "I don't know of any code that doesn't originate from a conscious mind, therefore all codes must come from a conscious mind". The reason for this is because you don't know where DNA comes from! If indeed it is a code under the definitions you posted how do you know that it isn't the "code that doesn't come from a conscious mind" that would prove that not all codes come from a conscious mind?
I don't think I am under the burden of proof here.
Also, I never said, "I don't know of any code that doesn't originate from a conscious mind, therefore all codes must come from a conscious mind". What I said was, the facts "to date" point in this direction, "all codes we know of to date, (you and I), come from a concious mind, so it stands to reason that we assume all codes, including DNA, come from a concious mind until proven otherwise".
That is compleatly reasonable.
Also, I would like to point out that I am not referring to "religion's" definition of Creator.
Your circular reasoning idea can be used to describe all unproven science, evolution included. I suggest we avoid placing this circular reasoning idea on each other.
quote:
As you can see, it's impossible to EVER end up with a code that doesn't come from a conscious mind using this logic.
First off, that sounds like defeatism to me. We may indeed find a code that is not a product of a concious mind someday. But until we do, we shouldn't shun the idea.
Second, if it was really impossible, than who is the unreasonable one? Me, who is stating something that is impossible to disprove, or you, who is refuting something that is impossible to disprove?
quote:
The only way that ID is every going to be meaningful in any sense at all is for it to supply an accurate method for determining something intelligently designed from something not intelligently designed. Personally I don't think that distinction can ever be detected objectively without seeing the "creation" process.
How would one propose to do that exactly? If all we know is designed, and all we experience and exist in is designed, how will we ever find the undesigned? It is impossible, at this time anyway, as proving once and for all that there is a God, or evolution is 100% fact.
I think you are using the word objectively out of context. Why? It would appear that you are not objective when it comes to creation. You seem to have deleted the notion that creation could be an option. Myself, I have left room for either.
It seems to me, (no disrespect intended), that even if all evidence pointed to creationism, many evolutionists would still say, "I don't think that distinction can ever be detected objectively without seeing the creation process", as if creationism still didn't count.
Let me rephrase that. I know of many people who, in an alter reality where creationism was fact, would turn to me and say, "you moron, even though all the facts point to creationism, you still can't see past creationism". I am dead seriouse. It seems to be an epidemic. I think it is sad that many evolutionist reject objectivity. (Not all by any means, just alot of that I know.) They refuse to concider creationism due to the religion problem. I say screw religion. It is a man made tool to control man. Nothing more. Leave all thoughts of religion out of your mind, then concider creationism. It looks a lot different from that perspective.
quote:
Not knowing of a naturalistic mechanism can never be evidence for any conclusion because there is always the possibility that a naturalistic mechanism can be found tomorrow. The only valid conclusion is "I don't yet know".
Again, no disrespect, but that argument works both ways.
My endeavor is simply to put both evolution and creation on the same plain. Remember, creation doesn't have to relate to "God", although some may choose to call this Creator a god.
Creationists and evolutionists both have to admit that none of us know yet, and be open to all possibilities. Granted, alot of creationists and evolutionists are ignorent of the facts and static in their opinions. Lets not be guilty of either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by happy_atheist, posted 06-15-2006 7:31 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 10:15 AM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 06-16-2006 10:35 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 10:35 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 56 by happy_atheist, posted 06-16-2006 6:18 PM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 58 by Annafan, posted 06-17-2006 3:39 PM tdcanam has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 17 of 220 (322171)
06-16-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 8:55 AM


Re: Wounded King
tdcanam writes:
Yes, I would. But look at where the rings come from. A tree. Does a tree contain DNA? Are tree rings not a product of the design of a tree?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 8:55 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:47 AM Percy has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 220 (322172)
06-16-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by paisano
06-16-2006 12:02 AM


paisano
quote:
The fact that all known codes are of human origin, even if correct (and I think that point is disputable), does not rule out the possibility of one of natural origin.
Exactly my point.
Both points are equally desputable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by paisano, posted 06-16-2006 12:02 AM paisano has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 220 (322174)
06-16-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ikabod
06-16-2006 7:07 AM


ikabod
quote:
dna contain readable infomation in the form of a code , so do rocks , so does light from a distant star , so does the weather over head ,
but none of it is infomation requiring a conscious mind to "create" the infomation .
Rocks, light from distant stars and weather overhead are in no way codes.
"Coded information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans. Other examples include, Bee waggle dances, bird songs, whale songs and ant communication by pheromone.
The definition of code provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not. Again, "Coded Information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
If there are pebbles below a rapids, there are pebbles below a rapids. There is no coded information associated with them - unless you measure their size, in which case you have created information to describe the pebbles, based on your chosen symbols and units of measurement. Same with orientation of sand dunes and layers of hailstone. Those objects represent only themselves; there is no encoding and decoding mechanism within these material objects, such as there is in DNA. If someone says the layers of a hailstone are an encoding mechanism, one could reply that there is no convention of symbols, nor is there a decoding mechanism.
Snowflakes, tornados, sand dunes, water molecules do not contain coded information because there is no system of symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanism, no transmission of a message (plan, idea or instructions) that is independent of the communication medium. In other words, these things represent nothing other than themselves.
A water molecule does not contain coded information because it represents nothing other than itself. Through chaos, water can form steam or clouds or condensation or snowflakes, depending entirely on the conditions. But unlike DNA, water molecules contain no code or instructions that specify in advance what any of these larger forms will take. Furthermore, we know from chaos theory that it's sometimes impossible to determine these forms in advance. That's why one snowflake is different from the next, even though the water molecules are identical. Chaos produces patterns (snowflakes, sand dunes, stalactites, hurricanes, tornados) naturally, but chaos does not produce symbols or coded information.
Chaos, fractals and complex systems: They produce stalagmites, stalactites, tornados, hurricanes, erosion, turbulence, sand dunes, rivers, ocean waves, planetary orbits, snowflakes and crystals. All of these things occur naturally with no help from a designer; they are excellent examples of self-organization. However none of these things produce codes. There is an infinite chasm between the most complicated forms of chaos and even the simplest codes. Codes have an entire dimension of order that chaos doesn't have: Symbolic Information.
Even if we assign symbols to the elements in a rock, the rock contains absolutly no codes. It contains no information whatsoever. All that we now have is recorded information about a rocks makeup. If we read this information, (those who have an understanding of the agreed upon set of symbols), all it will tell you is "rock". No information, plans, intent, next step, etc. No designs or information telling us anything other than this is a rock. This is because a rock is not a code, it describes nothing other than itself. It has no sender nor reciever.
A rock only describes itself. We can learn things about where a rock came from by it's makeup or learn things about history by looking at it's elements, but the rock is not telling us anything. We look at a bit of soil from one place and find that it matches the rock in another and we also find fossilized plants in it that we found petrified in this other place and we put 2 and 2 together. We "read into" the rock to determine certain things, but the rock doesn't communicate with anything. It doesn't instruct anything. It is not encoding anything and sending this code to a reciever. Codes requier a sender and a reciever.
Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
"Coded information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
The information we put on rocks is just a description of the contents of that rock. A rock is nothing but peices of dirt and crystals etc. joined together. A rock contains no information. All a rock contains is minerals.
(Just trying to clarify, this may take a bit, I'm kinda exausted.)
If there is a chunk of iron, what is it saying? What part of it encodes messages and transmits them? Iron says nothing. You can tear it apart and all you will find is iron. No arrangment of symbols, not even the symbol that represents it on the periodic table. Even when we "record" the makeup of it, it still conveys no information. All we have done is record the elements that iron contains "in" code on a medium.
Here is the formal definition of a code: Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p(A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(Smilie11.png], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
Instructions, by definition, require a mapping from probability space A to probability space B. Therefore any set of specific instructions is necessarily a code.
To fit the formal definition of code, a rock would need to contain a specific set of instructions. A rock carries no instructions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 7:07 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 10:43 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 20 of 220 (322175)
06-16-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 9:53 AM


bogus
tdcanam writes:
This is a cut and dry case of deductive resoning. If so far it appears that all codes come from a concious mind, than DNA, being a code, possibly came from a concious mind, until proven otherwise.
The problem with that reasoning is that it starts from a bogus premis (read post 14). To reitarate it here, there is many, many instances in nature of coding that does not involve a concious mind in any way. A important part of a scientist job is to decode that kind of information. I'll give you another instance: The average world temperature of the last hundred thousand years is coded in the antartic ice through purely physical processes (no concious mind was needed for that)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:53 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 220 (322178)
06-16-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Iblis
06-16-2006 8:59 AM


Iblis
quote:
Your assertion is that because DNA has the advantages of a code it must have the disadvantages as well. This is categorically untrue. The message involved in mere coding must come from someone, it must be intended for someone. DNA encodes and decodes itself without any assistance from hypothetical entities at all.
DNA does not have the advantages of a code.
DNA IS a code.
No catagories involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 8:59 AM Iblis has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 220 (322180)
06-16-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by fallacycop
06-16-2006 9:29 AM


fallacycop
quote:
Then the main point of this thread is bogus. It is simply not true that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. For instance, we can analyse the light from a distant star and find out about the chemistry of that star because that information is coded in the light. The idea that all known information to date has come from a concious mind is obviously simply utterly untrue. Sorry.
These examples are not codes. I just explained this a few minutes ago, read some of the previous posts.
The theory holds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 9:29 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 10:51 AM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 06-16-2006 11:24 AM tdcanam has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 220 (322185)
06-16-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
06-16-2006 9:43 AM


Percy
quote:
tdcanam writes:
Only intelligently designed systems map 1:1 to Shannon's model. (From The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, 1998).
quote:
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.
  —Percy
I never said that Shannon argued for intelligent origion. I didn't even quote Shannon. All I did was refer to a model designed by Shannon.
In hindsight, I should get you to compair it with Hubert Yockey's DNA communication channel model. Notice that it contains the exact same components as Shannon's - the two systems are isomorphic. The idea is that communication systems of this type are always, without exception, products of design. (From From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005.)
quote:
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.
I have already refuted star light and tree rings, look back about 4 or 5 posts and read through to this one, it's there. Those examples, with the exeption of tree ring which I explain, are not examples of codes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 9:43 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 10:54 AM tdcanam has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 24 of 220 (322189)
06-16-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 9:53 AM


inductive reasoning
This is a cut and dry case of deductive resoning. If so far it appears that all codes come from a concious mind, than DNA, being a code, possibly came from a concious mind, until proven otherwise.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:53 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:49 AM Modulous has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 25 of 220 (322190)
06-16-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 9:53 AM


Re: happy athiest
I beg to differ. Science has made many a mistake by pronouncing a theory a law and then finding out years later that it is in error.
You are misunderstanding how science works.
You seem to be taking a scientific law to something created by God as part of the design of the natural universe. While some scientists look at it that way, that leads to a misunderstanding of science.
It is better to think of a scientific law as a human construct, made as part of a program of successive approximation. It is not that laws are found to be in error. Rather, we develop better approximations, and thus we abandon the earlier approximation in preference for the newer, better one. It is a mistake to say that an earlier approximation was an error. It might have been the best approximation possible at the time. Using the best approximation available is not an error, even though at a later time an even better approximation might become available.
This is a cut and dry case of deductive resoning. If so far it appears that all codes come from a concious mind, than DNA, being a code, possibly came from a concious mind, until proven otherwise.
It is a little misleading to say that DNA is a code.
Portions of DNA are often described using the letters 'A', 'C', 'G', 'T'. This representation in letters is a code. The DNA is itself sometimes referred to as a genetic code. That's because humans have designated it as a code.
If you want to say that DNA is a code, then it is indeed a human constructed code. The decision to designate it as a code (as a realization of the genetic code) is the construction that makes DNA a code. The DNA is a code by virtue of that designation, and by virtue of the way humans use it, not by virtue of the way it works in biochemistry. In terms of the biochemistry, the DNA is simply part of a causal mechanism.
Your argument really amounts to this: Because humans designated the DNA as a code, and used it as a code, therefore the DNA itself must have been designed by a higher intelligence. But that is an absurd argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 9:53 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:57 AM nwr has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 26 of 220 (322196)
06-16-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:12 AM


bogus again
tdcanam writes:
Rocks, light from distant stars and weather overhead are in no way codes.
"Coded information" is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.
There are plenty of things in nature that meet that criteria. Lets take the light from distant stars as an example. it contains information about the chemistry of the star. this is information (a message if you will)
Snowflakes, tornados, sand dunes, water molecules do not contain coded information because there is no system of symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanism, no transmission of a message (plan, idea or instructions) that is independent of the communication medium. In other words, these things represent nothing other than themselves.
This is simply not true. For instance, there is plenty of information encoded in the icecore removed from antarctic ice that represent other things than the antarctic icecore themselves. information about the average world temperature over the last hundred thousand years is just one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:12 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 220 (322197)
06-16-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
06-16-2006 9:55 AM


Wounded King
quote:
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....
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.
Where is the code? All things on planet earth can be put into code, such as language or written, and those things are now coded bits of information. What information does a crater have?
Ask any communication engineer or information theorist and they will tell you that a crater on the moon is not an example of a code.
If I put a steak on the bbq and burn it to a crisp, it is quite obvious to anyone that it was burnt after it came into contact with heat. But does the meat represent? Nothing but burnt meat. it contains no instructions, no intent. It is just a burnt steak.
A crater is just a crater. It has no intent. It is just there, a product of cause and effect. Not a code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 9:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 11:07 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 11:08 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 220 (322200)
06-16-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
06-16-2006 10:35 AM


Re: inductive reasoning
quote:
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.
Finding an ancient language written in stone would only push the problem back further. Who encoded the DNA of those individuals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 06-16-2006 10:35 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ramoss, posted 06-16-2006 11:26 AM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 06-16-2006 12:33 PM tdcanam has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 29 of 220 (322201)
06-16-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:21 AM


bogus
quote:
Then the main point of this thread is bogus. It is simply not true that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. For instance, we can analyse the light from a distant star and find out about the chemistry of that star because that information is coded in the light. The idea that all known information to date has come from a concious mind is obviously simply utterly untrue. Sorry.
These examples are not codes. I just explained this a few minutes ago, read some of the previous posts.
They do meet the definition of codes. The only reason you declare them as not being codes is because they open a hole below the waterline in your initial assertions in this thread
The theory holds
no water

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:21 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 30 of 220 (322204)
06-16-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:29 AM


bogus
I have already refuted star light and tree rings, look back about 4 or 5 posts and read through to this one, it's there. Those examples, with the exeption of tree ring which I explain, are not examples of codes.
Your refutation is bogus. starlight and tree rings do meet the definition of a code

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:29 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:08 AM fallacycop has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024