Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 1 of 220 (321802)
06-15-2006 10:05 AM


Hi, new guy to this forum. I am a creationist who opts for an old earth and is in no way threatened by evolution. If evolution is one day proven to be a fact, I will be a happy man. However, as it stands, I have a few issues with macro evolution.
Let me start this thread off with a few definitions.
1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
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.
3. Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p(A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
4. Instructions, by definition, require a mapping from probability space A to probability space B. Therefore any set of specific instructions is necessarily a code.
5. To fit the formal definition of a code, DNA need only uniquely specify one or more characteristics (male/female, blood type, etc). It does, as well as sex, blood type, number of arms and legs, and a very very long list of other things. (This is just the short version.)
O.K., to the point.
DNA is a code, by all definitions of the word. Authorities agree. If you need quotes, let me know and I will be happy to post them, all of them. (There are many.)
The first part of my two fold problem with macro evolution is as follows, (note, this is not Paley's argument)
Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind. All of them. There is not one example of a naturally generated code.
If all codes come from a conscious mind, who encoded DNA?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "Intelligen" to "Intelligent" in topic title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2006 11:54 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-15-2006 2:00 PM tdcanam has replied
 Message 5 by happy_atheist, posted 06-15-2006 7:31 PM tdcanam has replied
 Message 6 by paisano, posted 06-16-2006 12:02 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 7 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 12:25 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 7:07 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2006 8:45 AM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 06-21-2006 1:59 AM tdcanam has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 220 (322151)
06-16-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Iblis
06-16-2006 12:25 AM


quote:
DNA isn't really a code though, it is just convenient to speak of it as one for preliminary study.
Take a look at a these.
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
The encoding / decoding process in DNA happens without the intervention of intelligence, just like your computer getting automatic virus updates. Water flows and hailstones and sand dunes do not encode and decode information in this way. Only intelligently designed systems map 1:1 to Shannon's model. (From The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, 1998).
Yockey describes the encoding, transmission and decoding within the cell and its analogue to a recording tape. (Quoting Yockey): “Figure 5.2 describes the DNA-mRNA-proteome communication system to show its isomorphism with the standard communication system of the communication engineer. The genome, or the ensemble of genetic messages, is generated by a stationary Markov process and recorded in the DNA sequence, which is isomorphic with the tape in a tape-recording machine (Turing, 1936).
“The idea of encoding, of the accurate representation of one thing by another, occurs in other contexts as well. Geneticists believe that the whole plan for a human body is written out in the chromosomes of the germ cell. Some assert that the ”text' consists of an orderly linear arrangement of four different units, or ”bases' in the DNA forming the chromosome. This text in turn produces an equivalent text in RNA, and by means of this RNA text proteins made up of sequences of 20 amino acids are synthesized. Some cryptanalytic effort has been spent in an effort to determine how the 4 character message of RNA is re-encoded into the 20 character code of the protein. Actually, geneticists have been led to such considerations by the existence of information theory. The study of the transmission of information has brought about a new general understanding of the problems of encoding, an understanding which is important to any sort of encoding, whether it be the encoding of cryptography or the encoding of genetic information.”
(John R. Pierce, An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise, 2nd edition, 1980)
(Hubert Yockey): “The genetic code has many of the properties of codes in general, specifically the Morse Code, the Universal Product Bar Code, ASCII, and the US Postal Code. I shall explain the relation of these codes to the genetic code in the following discussion. Every code, as the term is used in this book, can be regarded as a channel with an input alphabet A and an output alphabet B.”
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(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code.
Here p(A) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet A and p (B) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet B. (Perlwitz, Burks and Waterman, 1988)
Nature has extended the primary four-letter alphabet to the six-bit, 64 member alphabet of the genetic code. Each amino acid except Trytophan and Methionine has more than one codon. Thus, the genetic code is redundant (not degenerate). The sloppy terminology designating the genetic code as degenerate is responsible for most of the misunderstanding of the genetic information processing system.
“The genetic code is distinct and uniquely decodable, because the single Methionine codon AUG, and sometimes the Leucine codons UUG and CUG, serve as a starting signal for the protein sequence and performs the same function as the long frame bars at the beginning of the postal message in the ZIP+4 code and the Universal Product Code. The codons UGA, UAA and UAG function usually as non-sense and stop the translation of the protein from the mRNA and initiate the release of the protein sequence from the mRNA (Maeshiro and Kimura, 1998). They perform the same function as the long frame bar at the end of the postal bar code message (Bertram, 2001). Remember that non-sense does not mean nonsense or foolishness. Code letters are called non-sense because they have been given no sense or meaning assignment in the receiving alphabet.”(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
“The decoding of the genetic message from the DNA alphabet to the mRNA alphabet is called transcription in molecular biology. mRNA plays the role of the channel, which communicates the genetic message to the ribosomes, which serve as the decoder. The genetic message is decoded by the ribosomes from the 64 letter mRNA alphabet to the 20 letter alphabet of the proteome. This decoding process is called translation in molecular biology . (Ribosomes) act like the reading head on a tape machine (Turing, 1936). The protein molecule, which is the destination, is also a tape. Thus, the one-dimensional genetic message is recorded in a sequence of amino acids, which folds up to become a 3-dimensional active protein molecule. One is reminded of the linear signals that fold up to show a 2-dimensional picture on the television screen.”
(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
“The problem of how a sequence of four things (nucleotides) can determine a sequence of twenty things (amino acids) is known as the ”coding' problem.” (Francis Crick)
Genetic Code: The sequence of nucleotides, coded in triplets (codons) along the messenger RNA, that determines the sequence of amino acids in protein synthesis. The DNA sequence of a gene can be used to predict the mRNA sequence, and the genetic code can in turn be used to predict the amino acid sequence.
(50 years of DNA, Clayton and Dennis, Nature Publishing, 2003)
“The most compelling instance of biochemical unity is, of course, the genetic code. Not only is DNA the all but universal carrier of genetic information (with RNA viruses the sole exception), the table of correspondences that relates a particular triplet of nucleotides to a particular amino acid is universal. There are exceptions, but they are rare and do not challenge the rule.”
(The Way of the Cell, Franklin M. Harold, Oxford University Press, 2001)
“A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.
“In intercellular communication the domains and counterdomains are the signal molecules and their receptors, and the code is like the base-pair rules of the first-tier code of the DNA, a simple rule between pairs of molecules of matching surfaces.
Why There are no Double-Entendres in Biological Communication: The basic information for the encoding in intercellular communication (a high-class encoding complying with Shannon's Second Theorem) is all concentrated in the interacting molecular surfaces. And this information is what makes the communications unambiguous. We can now define an unambiguous communication: a communication in which each incoming message or signal at a receiver (or retransmitter) stage is encoded in only one way; or, stated in terms of mapping, a communication in which there is a strict one to one mapping of domains, so that for every element in the signal domain there is only one element in the counterdomain.
“The table in Figure 7.9 tells us at a glance that a given amino acid may have more than one coding triplet: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, for instance, are all synonyms for leucine. A code of this sort is said to be “degenerate.” That is OK despite the epithet, so long as the information flow goes in the convergent direction, as it normally does. The counterdomain here consists of only one element, and so a given triplet codes for no more than one amino acid. Thus, there is synonymity, but no ambiguity in the communications ruled by the genetic code.”
(The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999)
“(George) Gamow devised a scheme, illustrated by means of playing cards, that involved sets of three adjacent nucleotides per amino acide unit (“triplet” code) in a sequence of overlapping triplets. That proposal spurred Francis Crick and his colleagues to examine the coding problem more critically and to use knowledge gained from genetic experiments to test the possible validity of Gamow's scheme and its variants. By 1961 they had concluded that the nucleotides of each triplet did not belong to any other triplet (“nonoverlapping” code); that sets of triplets are arranged in continuous linear sequence starting at a fixed point on a polynucleotide chain, without breaks (“commaless” code), thus determining how a long sequence is to be read off as triplets; and that more than one triplet can code for a particular amino acid (“degenerate” code).
(Proteins, Enzymes, Genes: The Interplay of Chemistry and Biology, Joseph S. Fruton, Yale University Press 1999)
“The genome of any organism could from then on be understood in a detailed way undreamt of 20 years earlier. It had been revealed as the full complement of instructions embodied in a series of sets of three DNA nitrogenous bases. The totality of these long sequences were the instructions for the construction, maintenance, and functioning of every living cell. The genome was a dictionary of code words, now translated, that determined what the organism could do. It was the control center of the cell. Differences among organisms were the result of differences among parts of these genome sequences.”
(The Human Genome Project: Cracking the Genetic Code of Life, by Thomas F. Lee, Plenum Press, 1991)
“The three-nucleotide, or triplet code, was widely adopted as a working hypothesis. Its existence, however, was not actually demonstrated until the code was finally broken .
“With a knowledge of the genetic code, we can turn our attention to the question of how the information encoded in the DNA and transcribed into mRNA is subsequently translated into a specific sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain. The answer to this question is now understood in great detail . instructions for protein synthesis are encoded in sequences of nucleotides in the DNA molecule.”
(Biology, 5th Edition, by Curtis & Barnes, Worth Publishers, 1989)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 12:25 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 8:59 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 9:43 AM tdcanam has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 220 (322155)
06-16-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
06-15-2006 11:54 AM


Wounded King
quote:
I'm not sure that I would agree with this statement with regard to DNA. It seems to require the assumption that the 'message' is independent, I think you would need to make a case for this.
The information within the DNA describes more than just a helix. For example, say I wrote a message on a piece of paper. The paper is just paper, it describes nothing but itself. The ink I wrote the message in is just ink, it describes nothing but itself. Both of these things contain zero intent, plans, or messages. The symbols on the paper in ink however, have an agreed upon meaning between myself and the reader. They express my intent.
I have a full comprehension of the intent I wish to convey to you on paper, so I break it down, highest to lowest, pragmatics/intent, semantics/meaning, syntax/grammar, statistics/alphabet, and encode my message. You then recieve my message and work from the bottom up to decode it. Statistics/alphabet, syntax/grammar, semantics/meaning, pragmatics/intent.
The message is on paper, but the message has nothing to do with the paper. The message is written in ink, but is has nothing to do with ink. The message is seperate from it's medium(s).
quote:
Would you not consider the rings in a tree to be encoded with data relating to the seasons during which those rings developed?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2006 11:54 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 9:55 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2006 12:25 PM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2006 7:50 AM tdcanam has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 220 (322157)
06-16-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
06-15-2006 2:00 PM


Percy
quote:
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.
The main point of this thread is that all information/codes to date come from a concious mind. To this date.
DNA is a code, by all definitions of the word, so as far as we know, this fact leads us to the conclusion that a concious mind encoded DNA.
I am not saying this is proof, infact, it is more lack of proof. All you would need to do to shoot this down is produce one naturally generated code.
Please keep in mind, I am no enemy of evolution, I just question it, like anyone should. It is a theory, not a fact. It deserves to be questioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 06-15-2006 2:00 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 9:29 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2006 12:18 PM tdcanam has not replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 220 (322207)
06-16-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by nwr
06-16-2006 10:35 AM


Re: happy athiest
quote:
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.
Not really, DNA works wether we watch it work or not. Much like an anti virus system on your computer. It is a program written by a consious mind, but it performs it's function without human help after it is put into use.
DNA doesn't care what symbols you give it, it still transmits a specific message and it gets decoded, wether you know the symbols or not. It transmits information wether you place your own symbols on it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 10:35 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nwr, posted 06-16-2006 11:13 AM tdcanam has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 220 (322216)
06-16-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by fallacycop
06-16-2006 10:54 AM


fallacycop
No. Not bogus.
Tree rings are codes.
Codes that are traced back to the DNA of a tree. A product of DNA.
Starlight has no agreed upon set of symbols that is encoded into it and gets decoded by something. We can gather info. from it based on what we know, but if we don't bother learning what stars are made of, what light is, what color light is given off by a entity burning at a certain temp. than what is a star transmitting a code to? And what does it have say?
If I don't bother learning to speak German, German's continue to talk, just as DNA would continue to talk even if we didn't know how.
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.
Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
A strand of DNA in a skin cell that falls from your body contains a plan for a human being (you), even though neither the skin cell nor the strand of DNA are human beings. This is what is specifically mean by the phrase "independent of the communication medium." A book represents more than paper and ink, because it contains plans and ideas and instructions via coded information. Even if the topic of the book is paper or ink chemistry, or instructions for printing books, it still contains plans and ideas independent of the paper and ink it's printed on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 10:54 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 11:18 AM tdcanam has not replied
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 11:42 AM tdcanam has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 220 (322220)
06-16-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by fallacycop
06-16-2006 11:07 AM


fallacycop
Language/code is confined to the four levels of language which are from the lowest level to the highest; statistics/alphabet, syntax/grammar, semantics/meaning, pragmatics/intent.
Yes, a code is an agreed upon system of symbols, sounds, gestures, etc. that express intent.
To express intent, I get an idea, an intent, I back it through the four levels untill I get to alphabet/statistics. I then encode my intent in alphabet form. Then I transmit the code to you (the whole reason I encoded my intent was to transmit it to you, it had intended purpose). You recieve the code and, going through the four levels bottom to top, you read the agreed upon alphabet that is arranged in an agreed upon system in order to recieve my intended message. My intent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 11:07 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by fallacycop, posted 06-16-2006 11:23 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024