Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

Hypothesis for ID: All of life wherever we find it to date has an informational content and where there is no informational content we do not have life.Corollary: The information content is hybridized onto matter in our case the proteins, sugars, DNA, RNA, enzymes that systematically enable life as we observe it to continue.Corollary: The form the information takes is not purely chemical but uses chemistry and its spacial configurations to store and retrieve coded messages in generally three dimensions which are read and understood by convention and are actionable tasks which are carried out after recognition by other molecular components.Corollary: The hybridization is negentropic work which is unaccounted for (sourced) by any purely chemical or naturalistic properties of the matter involved.Predictive Value:Biological science if carried out from the perspective of information and information based systematics being the enabler of life processes and that information being hybridized onto matter by an outside intelligent designer will employ a different, more efficient and appropriate set of scientific tools to the understanding of the genome and all related medical and such research. These tools will be those used by systems designers, coders, debuggers and security specialists in the field of information science,software and networks.Falsification: If any peer reviewed experimental result should demonstrate that the innate properties of chemistry are the source of the genetic code, its cellular systematic componentry, the organization of the code into messages and provide for the negentropic work by energy flows necessary to perform the negentropic separation of L&D forms, code development and message organization then this hypothesis shall be falsified.Respectfully,
Evopeach

quote:

---

Falsification: If any peer reviewed experimental result should demonstrate that the innate properties of chemistry are the source of the genetic code, its cellular systematic componentry, the organization of the code into messages and provide for the negentropic work by energy flows necessary to perform the negentropic separation of L&D forms, code development and message organization then this hypothesis shall be falsified.

---

The chapter on genetics in any first year college biology text provides your falsification.

Chiroptera,I am once again disappointed by the cursory and meaningless response from the community you apparently represent.It is totally uncontested that the random replicator theory has been demonstrated to be probabilistically impossible, the theory of chemical predestination has been long abandoned and all thats left is the far from equililibrium energy flow on clay substrate which has zero experimental demonstration and is also falling into disrepute. You do yourself no service by such a ... well silly response.There is not even a decent proposal explaining the source of the informational aspects of the genetic code... code its called a complex meaningful code.Now lets see some real recent new experimental results in response.

But there's no information present in the genetic "code". Code is, in fact, the wrong word to use - "sequence" would be much more accurate.If you're going to base your argument on false pretenses, you're going to have to pardon us if the first thing we do is attack your pretenses instead of your argument.

quote:

---

It is totally uncontested that the random replicator theory has been demonstrated to be probabilistically impossible, the theory of chemical predestination has been long abandoned and all thats left is the far from equililibrium energy flow on clay substrate which has zero experimental demonstration and is also falling into disrepute. You do yourself no service by such a ... well silly response.

---

Actually, it is completely contested.Second, this has nothing to do with what you originally posted. Your first quote had nothing to do with any origins; the portion I commented on was: Nothing about origins -- it is a statement about what currently exists. If you cannot see that the two statements are unrelated then you simply do not understand the words you are using.-

quote:

---

There is not even a decent proposal explaining the source of the informational aspects of the genetic code... code its called a complex meaningful code.

---

Since no creationist or IDist has ever given a meaningful definition of the work "information", the the lack of decent proposals is not the fault of the scientists.Maybe you should try again. Explain clearly what you are proposing. Try not to use such big words.

Sure but I am unsure what words are big to you.Information has been defined in this context as being a sequence of symbols which to a code reader are intelligible because an agreement has been developed as to the meaning or message or instruction made clear by the specific arrangement of the code symbols.C A T to a nonenglish speaking person is gibberish even though to you and I we know it mean kitty kat and we can conjure up a picture of a cat, its meow, etc. Thus there is a cognitive thought process of the code designer and the code reader. Further the code in the case of life is instructional and results in clearly defined tasks carried out by the receiver and still other entities then perform other duties all required for cellular life processes.The code is not chemical in nature it is instead understood from three dimentionality in storage and readout, configurational entropy status is a term you are probably familiar with. The code is more a function of positional, geometrical parameters than any chemical properties or reactions.The information is not surprise effect or potential information (not shannon information) but real complex readable understandable actionable code language.Thus the codons read in triplicate by a ribosome from m-rna is a real language which is indeed understood as in a convention (SOS means help)agreed to by the parties and results in real work and tasks being carried out by cellular machinery.No code has ever come into being without being designed by intelligence agreeing with intelligence to assign meaning which immediately conveys the result of cognitive thought hybridized onto the symbolic materials by the designer.

quote:

---

Information has been defined in this context as being a sequence of symbols which to a code reader are intelligible because an agreement has been developed as to the meaning or message or instruction made clear by the specific arrangement of the code symbols.

---

Since "agreement" requires several intelligent entities, I don't see how this relates to DNA. In fact, none of the words "message", "instruction", nor "symbol" are really appropriate to the study of DNA.-

quote:

---

No code has ever come into being without being designed by intelligence agreeing with intelligence to assign meaning which immediately conveys the result of cognitive thought hybridized onto the symbolic materials by the designer.

---

"Code" may be a decent analogy to explain genetics to someone, but it is not a very accurate description of genetics, and so this statement does not apply to genetics.You are making an argument by semantic sophistry. You are using words that bring to the reader's mind ideas that are not appropriate in describing how DNA actually works.

As usual you are folowing the line of attacking the ability of others and using semantical curcumlocutions to avoid the clear hypothesis, predictive and falsification elements to which you could be responding if you had any real evidence.Instead you make the rediculous claim that the genetic code is not really a code just a sequence.. not a position held by anyone in the universe today.I am afraid you are not very capable of true rhetoric just a form of sophistry and avoidance.I am not interested in such childishness and immature behavior.Please any responsible adults out there?

In what sense can a ribosome "read", or enter an agreement, or find something intelligible?The ribosome catalyzes chemical reactions on molecules. It doesn't read things, it doesn't interpret symbols, it doesn't decode a code. It doesn't have a brain so it's not capable of all the thinking you've just ascribed to it.

quote:

---

Instead you make the rediculous claim that the genetic code is not really a code just a sequence.. not a position held by anyone in the universe today.

---

Not in your universe, maybe.-

quote:

---

I am afraid you are not very capable of true rhetoric just a form of sophistry and avoidance.

---

No, I am just pointing out that your statements are meaningless. DNA is not a code, at least it not in the sense that it carries any "meaining". By the way, it is not a "blue print", either.

As usual? We've never spoken before. Oh? You looked around the entire universe?A code is something that, as you yourself defined, two speakers agree on as a way to link symbols and referents. Genetic sequences are specified by chemical interactions, not as a means of communication between two speakers. I mean, duh.DNA can't be a code because codes are a method of communication between speakers, which DNA is obviously not. Then why are you being childish and immature?

Perhaps a simpler analogy will help. In machine shops there are lathes and such that will repeatedly perform certain tasks based on instructions in a strip of mylar with holes punched in specific locations that can be read and understood by the tape head reader in the lathe. The code was designed, developed and implemented by an industry under a specification agreement. It is commonplace for the tape encoder and tape reader to be two different entities though not necessarily. Yet because they have an agreement they can communicate and rreal work is performed. The tape doesn't think, the reader doesn't think the lathe doesn't think but it sure can read the instructions and carry out refined and definite taks based on the code on the tape.If you don't think thr ribosome is reading the m-rna then you have no concept of the operation. Maybe you can talk 100,000 people into new names other than genetic CODE, MESSENGER rna, TRANSFER rna. Let me know when you have successfully overturned the entire nomenclature of the biological world.Adults please

quote:

---

Maybe you can talk 100,000 people into new names other than genetic CODE, MESSENGER rna, TRANSFER rna.

---

Fallacy of Equivocation

So I am using the same term with two meanings. Please illustrate since your camp set up the terms gentic code , messenger rna, transfer rna, replicase etc etc . Did your team do that to confuse and obfuscate their own community or the public or students. Pray why didn't you set those other brilliant theorists and researchers straight on such confusion.You have to have a little imagination for the analogy .. in case your not up to it let me know.

One problem I see in your argument is that:1) DNA is an ineficient coding "language". It has lots of junk and redundancies and is not very well commented at all 2) DNA is not symbolic. The amino acids don't symbolize anything. Neither are they interpreted. They are catalysts in a complex chemical reaction.Would you say crystals are the result of intelegent "programming"?